    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

         Coastal Zone
           Information
               Center

                                          V  A

                                                               Sm

                                                                                        1*1 V

                                                                                                                        IX
                 G
                 70
                 .G   3
                 G74
                 1976
                 appendix                                                                                              lidlife
                 v. 17
                                                                                                                                STU
                                                rL---,S BASIN F
                               4

                                                                               0
                                                                                     3

                  Great Lakes Basin Framework Study

                                      APPENDIX 17

                                         WILDLIFE                U . S . DEPA8TMENT OF COMW EFICE NOAA
                                                                 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                                 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                                 CHARLESTON   SC 29405-2413

                                                     ME

                                                 VrOPertY Of CSC Library
        Z                        GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION

                                    Prepared by Wildlife Work Group

                           Sponsored by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

                                     U.S. Department of the Interior

                         Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475
                         Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1975.
                         Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves.

                         This appendix to the Report of the Great Lakes Basinkraimework Study was prepared at field level under the
                         auspices of the Great Lakes Bhsin' Commission to provide da-ta *for use in the conduct of the Study and
                         preparation of the Report. The conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the group preparing the
                         appendix and not necessarily those of the Basin Commission. The tecommendations of the Great Lakes Basin
                         Commission are included in the Report.

                         The copyright material reproduced in this volume of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was printed
                         with the kind consent of the copyright holders. Section 8, title 17, United States Code, provides:
                           The publication or republication_@Y,the Governirnent,-either separately or in a public document, of any
                                                                n-'@ N@11 ' "bAa-ken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the
                           material in which copyright is-sub�istii@g   not-
                           copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the
                           copyright proprietor.
                         The Great Lakes Basin Commission requests that no copyrighted material in this volume be republished or
                         reprinted without the permission of the author.

                                                       OUTLINE

                       Report
                       Appendix   1:  Alternative Frameworks
                       Appendix   2:  Surface Water Hydrology
                       Appendix   3:  Geology and Ground Water
                       Appendix   4:  Limnology of Lakes and Embayments
                       Appendix   5:  Mineral Resources
                       Appendix   6:  Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, and Rural
                       Appendix   7:  Water Quality
                       Appendix   8:  Fish
                       Appendix  C9:  Commercial Navigation
                       Appendix  R9:  Recreational Boating
                       Appendix  10:  Power
                       Appendix  11:  Levels and Flows
                       Appendix  12:  Shore Use and Erosion
                       Ap])endix 13:  Land Use and Management
                       Appendix  14:  Flood Plains
                       Appendix  15:  Irrigation
                       Appendix  16:  Drainage
                       Appendix  17:  Wildlife
                       Appendix  18:  Erosion and Sedimentation
                       Appendix  19:  Economic and Demographic Studies
                       Appendix F20:  Federal Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements
                       Appendix S20:  State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements
                       Appendix  21:  Outdoor Recreation
                       Appendix  22:  Aesthetic and Cultural Resources
                       Appendix  23:  Health Aspects
                       Environmental Impact Statement

                                                                                                               1J 11
                                                                                                                    J J

                                                                  SYNOPSIS

                       Nearly all of the Great Lakes Basin is wild-           land-use intensity. The current Basin popula-
                     life habitat. In the U.S. portion of the land            tion, 30 million people, is expected to increase
                     area there are 75 million acres of habitat or            to 53 million during the 50-year study period.
                     resource base, out of a total of 84 million acres.       Most of these people live in a belt through the
                     The shoal waters in the U.S. portion of the              southern tier of Basin States where the
                     Great Lakes total 610,000 acres, of which                greatest increase will occur.
                     491,000 acres are important to wildlife. All of            People cause two problems of greatest con-
                     the open waters are used from time to time               cern to wildlife managers-habitat degrada-
                     by migrating waterfowl. The value of this habi-          tion and loss. The population increase will
                     tat varies greatly, but the important consider-          cause a loss of a projected five million acres of
                     ation is that all nonurbanized land, some                wildlife habitat over the study period. Degra-
                     urban land, and all waters have some value to            dation is difficult to quantify. It is estimated
                     wildlife.                                                that significant portions of the Basin wildlife
                       The eight kinds of Basin wildlife habitat in-          habitat will be degraded by 2020.
                     clude northern wilderness forests; farmland                Ironically, increased human populations
                     woodlots; blocks of eastern hardwood forests;            also mean an increased demand for wildlife
                     river bottom woodlands; scrub and brush                  resources. The present demand for use of wild-
                     lands; open fields and meadows; cropland; and            life resources is 15 million man-days, and it is
                     freshwater wetlands.                                     projected to increase to 33 million man-days in
                       The supply of wildlife habitat other than              2020. Hunter participation is growing more
                     cropland is generally good in the northern and           slowly than population so the demand figure
                     far eastern areas of the Basin and only fair             projected for 2020 actually consists of more
                     south of these areas. The country north of the           non-hunters than hunters.
                     Milwaukee- Buffalo line is forested and
                     sparsely settled, while the Basin country                  Game and furbearer population trends and
                     south of this line is heavily settled and is pri-        the environmental factors influencing them
                     marily industrial and agricultural. The wide             are felt to be generally indicative of those for
                     spectrum of wildlife that occupies this habitat          nongame species associated with similar
                     can be grouped into the following major                  habitats. The use of game and furbearer data
                     categories: big game, waterfowl, shorebirds,             throughout the report reflects availability
                     wading birds, songbirds, small game and fur-             rather than an emphasis on this relatively
                     bearers. Some of these animals and birds are             small group of wildlife species.
                     rare, some endangered, and some common.                    To meet these demands and insure protec-
                       The single most important factor affecting             tion of wildlife habitat a number of recom-
                     Basin wildlife and habitat is human popula-              mendations are made, including the aequisi-
                     tion growth and the resultant increase in                tion of 14 million acres of wildlife habitat.

                                                                           v

                                                         FOREWORD

                   Appendix 17, Wildlife, is intended primarily      and Eugene Bass (alternate), Indiana; J. Mark
                 for use in plan formulation. It represents the      Hargitt, Stanley R. Quackenbush, Ed Mikula,
                 combined effort of work group members, with         Dr. Norman F. Sloan and Arlow Boyce (alter-
                 greatest input from State members. In 1962          nate), Michigan; Jerome H. Kuehn, Joseph
                 Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, di-          Sizer, and John Hall (alternate), Minnesota;
                 rected close cooperation in planning by key         Ralph S. Palmer (liason), Edgar M. Reilly,
                 Federal agencies "to the end that regional,         Robert F. Perry, Charles Mason (replaced R.F.
                 State, and local objectives may be accomplish-      Perry in March 1972), John A. Finck (informa-
                 ed to the greatest extent consistent with na-       tion); Denton Aldrow (alternate), New
                 tional objectives." With the passage of PL 89-      York; Allen Cannon, Ohio; Nicholas Vukovich,
                 80, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965,       Pennsylvania; and Frank King and Edward J.
                 it was declared to be the policy of the Congress    Frank (alternate), Wisconsin.
                 to encourage the conservation, development,           The appendix was prepared by Sumner A.
                 and utilization of water and related land re-       Dole, Jr., John C. Peterson, and Kenneth A.
                 sources of the United States on a comprehen-        Multerer, staff members of the Lebanon, Ohio,
                 sive and coordinated basis by the Federal           field office of the U.S. Bureau of Sport
                 government, States, local governments, and          Fisheries and Wildlife. A number of persons in
                 private enterprise with the cooperation of all      the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
                 affected Federal agencies and others con-           several State employees, and representatives
                 cerned. To this end, the Great Lakes Basin          of several Federal agencies assisted the au-
                 Commission was created and the Wildlife             thors by providing information for the appen-
                 Work Group formed to provide an inventory           dix.
                 of the existing wildlife resources and a plan         This appendix is written to favor pres-
                 for their future use. The work group was di-        ervation and sound management of wildlife
                 rected by the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries        resources. We also understand that any
                 and Wildlife.                                       "trade-offs" or losses of wildlife habitat to
                   Members of the work group and alternates          other planning interests are the responsibility
                 are as follows: Sumner A. Dole, Jr., work group     of decision-making and policy-level govern-
                 chairman, and John C. Peterson, U.S. Bureau         ment officials.
                 of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; H. Gordon
                 Hanson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fran-           Notwithstanding prior agreements with
                 cis J. Baker, U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Rec-           other planning elements, terminology used in
                 reation; Robert Radtke, U.S. Forest Service;        this appendix is that recognized by the major-
                 Charles Smith, U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-          ity of the work group, voting members from
                 vice; Richard Lutz, Illinois; Edward Hanson         State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies.

                                                                  vi

                                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                            Page
                         OUTLINE        ....................................................................                  iii

                         SYNOPSIS        ...................................................................                   v

                         FOREWORD          .................................................................                  vi

                         LIST OF TABLES          ............................................................                  x

                         LIST OF FIGURES            ...........................................................               xiv

                         INTRODUCTION           .............................................................                xvii

                         I BASIN DESCRIPTION                ...................................................                1

                             1.1   Biophysical Characteristics        ...........................................              1
                                   1.1.1 Lake Superior Basin          ............................................             1
                                   1.1.2 Lake Michigan Basin          ...........................................              1
                                   1.1.3 Lake Huron Basin          .............................................               2
                                   1.1.4 Lake Erie Basin        ................................................               2
                                   1.1.5 Lake Ontario Basin          ............................................              2
                             1.2 Demographic Considerations            ..........................................              3

                         2 PRESENT STATUS OF WILDLIFE                       ......................................             5

                             2.1   Basin Wildlife Populations and Trends           ................................            5
                                   2.1.1   Minnesota     ......................................................                5
                                   2.1.2   Wisconsin     ......................................................                5
                                   2.1.3   Illinois .........................................................                  6
                                   2.1.4   Indiana    ........................................................                 6
                                   2.1.5   Michigan    .......................................................                 6
                                   2.1.6   Ohio  ............................................................                  7
                                   2.1.7   Pennsylvania    .......................................         ............        8
                                   2.1.8   New York      ......................................................                8

                             2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Trends           ..........................................             26
                                   2.2.1   The Wildlife Habitat Base        ......................................            26
                                   2.2.2   Great Lakes Wetlands and Waterfowl             ..........................          38
                                           2.2.2.1  Introduction      ...........................................             38
                                           2.2.2.2  Defining Wetlands        .....................................            38
                                           2.2.2.3  Wildlife and Great Lakes Wetlands           .....................         38
                                           2.2.2.4  Waterfowl Use Patterns         ................................           54
                                           2.2.2.5  National Wildlife Refuges        ..............................           66
                                           2.2.2.6  Status of Wetlands       .....................................            67
                             2.3   Use of Wildlife Resources and Trends           .................................           72
                                   2.3.1 Species Utilization       .............................................              72
                             2.4   Existing Wildlife Problems        ............................................             73
                                   2.4.1 Basinwide Problems          ............................................             73
                                   2.4.2 Wildlife Problems in Each Planning Subarea                ...................        77
                                           2.4.2.1 Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wisconsin                 .......      77
                                           2.4.2.2 Planning Subarea 2.1, Wisconsin            .......................         78

                                                                            vii

                   viii Appendix 17

                                                                                                                           Page

                                          2.4.2.3   Planning Subarea 2.2, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana                    79
                                          2.4.2.4   Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan              ...........       80
                                          2.4.2.5   Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1, Michigan            ..........       82
                                          2.4.2.6   Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan         ........................           83
                                          2.4.2.7   Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan         ........................           84
                                          2.4.2.8   Planning Subarea 4.2, Indiana and Ohio             ...............        85
                                          2.4.2.9   Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio        .............................           86
                                          2.4.2.10  Planning Subarea 4.4, Pennsylvania and New York                 ....      90
                                          2.4.2.11  Planning Subarea 5.1, New York           .......................          91
                                          2.4.2.12  Planning Subarea 5.2, New York           .......................          92
                                          2.4.2.13  Planning Subarea 5.3, New York           .......................          93

                         3 FUTURE USE OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES                           .............................           95

                            3.1 Projected Human Populations             ........................................              95
                            3.2   Projected Hunter Use         ................................................               95
                                  3.2.1   Projected Participants       .........................................              95
                                          3.2.1.1 Licensed Resident Use          .................................            95
                                          3.2.1.2 Licensed Non-Resident Use            ............................           96
                                          3.2.1.3 Unlicensed Use        ........................................              96
                                          3.2.1.4 Latent Demand         ........................................              96
                                  3.2.2   Projected Annual Use Rates Per Participant              ...................         97
                                  3.2.3   Projected Gross Demand          .......................................             97
                                  3.2.4   Projected Net Demand         .........................................              97
                                  3.2.5   Planning Subareas: Hunters and Needs             ........................           97
                                  3.2.6   Estimated Non-Hunter Use            ....................................          100

                         4 ALTERNATIVES FOR SATISFYING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS                                        ......    101

                            4.1 Capabilities of Wildlife Resources to Sustain Future Demands                   ........     101
                            4.2 Known Future Management Programs and Recommendations                           ........     101
                                  4.2.1   Minnesota    .................... .................................               101
                                          4.2.1.1 Future Management Programs               ........................         101
                                          4.2.1.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 1.1)                         101
                                  4.2.2   Wisconsin     ......................................................              102
                                          4.2.2.1   Future Programs        ......................................           102
                                          4.2.2.2   Management Recommendations for Northern Forest Re-
                                                    gion (Planning Subarea 1.1 and Northern Half of Plan-
                                                    ning Subarea 2.1)      ......................................           102
                                          4.2.2.3   Management Recommendations for Farm and Urban
                                                    Region (Planning Subarea 2.2 and Southern Half of Plan-
                                                    ning Subarea 2.1). ..:     ....................................         104
                                  4.2.3   Illinois  ........                    ..................................          104
                                          4.2.3.1   Known Future Management Programs                .................       104
                                          4.2.3.2   Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 2.2)                       104
                                  4.2.4   Indiana     ........................................................              105
                                          4.2.4.1 Future Management Programs               ..........                       105
                                          4.2.4.2 Management Recommendations (Planning'9*u*ba'r*e*a*s*'2*.*2*,
                                                    2.3, and 4.2)   ............................................            105
                                  4.2.5   Michigan     .......................................................              105
                                          4.2.5.1   Future Programs        ......................................           105
                                          4.2.5.2   Management Recommendations for Southern Part of the
                                                    State   ...................................................             106
                                          4.2.5.3   Management Recommendations for Northern Part of the
                                                    State   ...................................................             106

                                                                                                            Table of Contents      ix

                                                                                                                           Page

                                   4.2.6  Ohio   ............................................................               107
                                          4.2.6.1 Future Programs          ......................................           107
                                          4.2.6.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subareas 4.2
                                                    and 4.3)    ................................................            108
                                   4.2.7  Pennsylvania      ...................................................             108
                                          4.2.7.1 Future Management Programs (Planning Subarea 4.4).                        108
                                          4.2.7.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 4.4)                         109
                                   4.2.8  New York      ......................................................              109
                                          4.2.8.1   Future Programs         ......................................          109
                                          4.2.8.2   General Management Recommendations (Planning Sub-
                                                    areas 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3)    ..............................         109
                                          4.2.8.3   Waterfowl and Wetland Recommendations                .............      109
                                          4.2.8.4   Farm-Game Recommendations              .........................        110
                                          4.2.8.5   Upland Game Recommendations              .......................        110
                                          4.2.8.6   Big-Game Recommendations            ...........................         110
                                          4.2.8.7   Other Recommendations           ...............................         110
                                          4.2.8.8 Additional Recommendations Specific to Planning Sub-
                                                    area 5.3    ................................................            ill
                              4.3 Estimated State Budgets for the Study Period               ........................       ill

                         SUMMARY         ...................................................................                123

                              Status of Wildlife Resources (1970)         .......................................           123
                              Future Use of Wildlife Resources (1980 to 2020)           ...........................         124
                              General Basinwide Recommendations               ....................................          124

                         GLOSSARY         ..................................................................                127

                         BIBLIOGRAPHY            ............................................................               131

                         ADDENDUM         .................................................................                 135

                              Methodology      ..............................................................               135
                              Basic Data for Planning Subarea 4.2            .....................................          135
                              Computations      .............................................................               136
                              Determination of the Acreage Needs of the Wildlife User               ..................      139
                              Determination of Needed Acres in Planning Subarea 4.2                 .................       140

                                                      LIST OF TABLES

                      Table                                                                                   Page

                      17-1    Population of Great Lakes Basin by Plan Area and Planning Subarea.                  3

                      17-2    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wis-
                              consin  .................................................................        11

                      17-3    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.1 and 2.2, Wisconsin          12

                      17-4    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.2, Indiana and Illinois        13

                      17-5    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan        14

                      17-6    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 1.2 and 2.1, Michigan .         15

                      17-7    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.4 and 3.1, Michigan ..         16

                      17-8    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 3.2 and 4.1, Michigan .         17

                      17-9    Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio     ..............     18

                      17-10   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 4.2, Indiana, and 4.3, Ohio     19

                      17-11   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.4, New York and
                              Pennsylvania    ..........................................................       20

                      17-12   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 5.1 and 5.2, New York           21

                      17-13   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Black River
                              Valley and Central Tug Hill     ...........................................      22

                      17-14   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Tug Hill
                              Transition and Western Adirondacks       ..................................      23

                      17-15   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Adirondack
                              Transition and Central Adirondacks      ...................................      24

                      17-16   Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, St. Law-
                              rence Plain and Eastern Ontario Plain      ................................      25

                      17-17   Total Acres and Percent of Farm and Forest Game Habitat by Planning
                              Subarea in 1960    .......................................................       26

                      17-18   Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat by State and Planning Subarea
                              in 1960  ................................................................        26

                      17-19   Acres of Public Lands Open to Hunting, Mid-1960s        ....................     27

                      17-20   State Parks and Recreation Areas, Mid-1960s        .........................     28

                      17-21   Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat       ....................     29

                                                                  x

                                                                                                    List of Tables xi

                      Table                                                                                  Page

                      17-22   Areas of Ecological Significance in Minnesota     .........................      31

                      17-23   Areas of Ecological Significance in Indiana    ............................      32

                      17-24   Areas of Ecological Significance in Wisconsin   ..........................       33

                      17-25   Areas of Ecological Significance in Illinois  .............................      33

                      17-26   Areas of Ecological Significance in Michigan    ..........................       34

                      17-27   Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio    ...............................      34

                      17-28   Areas of Ecological Significance in Pennsylvania      ......................     36

                      17-29   Areas of Ecological Significance in New York      .........................      36

                      17-30   Great Lakes and Connecting Waterways Shoal Acreages           ..............     54

                      17-31   Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges     ..........................       67

                      17-32   National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin-Waterfowl and
                              Public Use  .............................................................        67

                      17-33   Acres of Great Lakes Basin Coastal Wetlands of Significant Value to Fish
                              and Wildlife   ...........................................................       68

                      17-34   Total Hunters by Target Years in the Great Lakes Basin         .............     73

                      17-35   Great Lakes Basin Projected Net Demands on Wildlife Habitat by Non-
                              Consumptive Users by Target Years        ..................................      73

                      17-36   Pennsylvania Game Harvest        ..........................................      74

                      17-37   Indiana Estimated Game Harvest        .....................................      74

                      17-38   Illinois Estimated Game Harvest     ...............  .......................     74

                      17-39   Ohio Estimated Game Harvest        ........................................      74

                      17-40   Minnesota Estimated Game Harvest         ..................................      74

                      17-41   Wisconsin Estimated Game Harvest        ...................................      74

                      17-42   Michigan Estimated Game Harvest        ....................................      75

                      17-43   New York Game Harvest       ..............................................       75

                      17-44   Great Lakes Basin Fur Catch       .........................................      76

                      17-45   Percent of Great Lakes Basin Habitat Base Lost to Urban Development              77

                      17-46   Cooperative Agreements in the Ohio Portion of Planning Subarea 4.2               86

                      17-47   Cooperative Agreements in Planning Subarea 4.3         .....................     89

                      17-48   Total Hunters, Great Lakes Basin      .....................................      95

                  xii Appendix 17

                       Table                                                                                      Page

                       17-49   Resident Licensed Hunters, Great Lakes Basin            .......................      96

                       17-50   Licenses and Gross and Net Demands for Hunting, Great Lakes Basin                    98

                       17-51   Acres of Wildlife Habitat Needed to Satisfy Hunter Demands, Great
                               Lakes Basin     ...........................................................          99

                       17-52   Projected Net Demands on Wildlife Habitat by Non-Consumptive Users,
                               Great Lakes Basin     ....................................................           99

                       17-53   Acres of Potentially Huntable Land, Great Lakes Basin           ...............     100

                       17-54   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 1.1, Minnesota   ....................................................          112

                       17-55   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 1.1, Wisconsin   ....................................................          112

                       17-56   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 2.1, Wisconsin   ....................................................          113

                       17-57   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 2.2, Wisconsin   ....................................................          113

                       17-58   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 2.2, Indiana    ......................................................         114

                       17-59   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 2.3, Indiana    ......................................................         114

                       17-60   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 4.2, Indiana    ......................................................         115

                       17-61   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.3, Michigan            .......     115

                       17-62   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan            .......     116

                       17-63   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan            .......     116

                       17-64   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.4, Michigan            .......     117

                       17-65   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.1, Michigan            .......     117

                       17-66   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 1.2, Michigan            .......     118

                       17-67   Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.1, Michigan            .......     118

                       17-68   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 4.2, Ohio   ..........................................................         119

                       17-69   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 4.3, Ohio   ..........................................................         119

                       17-70   Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                               area 4.4, Pennsylvania     .................................................        120

                                                                                                List of Tables xiii

                      Table                                                                                Page

                      17-71  Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                             area 4.4, New York   ....................................................      120

                      17-72  Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                             area 5.1, New York   ....................................................      121

                      17-73  Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                             area 5.2, New York   ....................................................      121

                      17-74  Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub-
                             area 5.3, New York   ....................................................      122

                      17-75  Sample License Table     .................................................     138

                      17-76  Sample Supply Areas Table, Planning Subarea 4.2        ....................    138

                                                         LIST OF FIGURES

                       Figure                                                                                       Page

                       17-1    Great Lakes Region Planning Subareas            ...............................      xviii

                       17-2    Typical Minnesota Forest Habitat in Planning Subarea 1.1             ............        5

                       17-3    Wildlife Habitat Zones, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York             ..............      10

                       17-4    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.1 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              39

                       17-5    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.2 as of
                               1970  ............................................................        : ......     40

                       17-6    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.1 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              41

                       17-7    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.2 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              42

                       17-8    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.3 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              43

                       17-9    Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.4 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              44

                       17-10   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.1 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              45

                       17-11   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.2 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              46

                       17-12   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.1 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              47

                       17-13   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.2 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              48

                       17-14   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.3 as of
                               1970  ....................................................................             49

                       17-15   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.4 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              50

                       17-16   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.1 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              51

                       17-17   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.2 as of
                               1970  ...................................................................              52

                       17-18   Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.3 as of
                               1970  ....................................................................             53

                                                                     xiv

                                                                                                     List of Figures xv

                       Figure                                                                                   Page

                       17-19 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Diving Ducks            ................      56

                       17-20 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Dabbling Ducks            ..............      57

                       17-21  Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Canada Geese           ................      58

                       17-22  Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Blue and Snow Geese             ........     59

                       17-23  Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 1          ............................        60

                       17-24  Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2          ............................        61

                       17-25  Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3          ............................        62

                       17-26  Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 4          ............................        63

                       17-27  Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5          ............................        64

                       17-28  Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges         ..........................       65

                       17-29  Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge       ..................................        69

                       17-30  Pointe Mouillee State Game Area Before Break in Barrier Beach, 1937.                 70

                       17-31  Pointe Mouillee State Game Area After Break in Barrier Beach, Loss of
                              Marshlands, 1957      ......................................................         70

                       17-32  Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, Loss of Marshlands, 1970           ...........      70

                       17-33  Marina and Boat Channel Construction Destroy Wetlands in Western
                              New York      .............................................................          71

                       17-34  Wetlands Being Filled to. Make Golf Course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in
                              Monroe County, New York         ............................................         71

                       17-35  Industrial Development Threatens Round Pond, an Important Coastal
                              Wetland West of Rochester, New York         .................................        71

                       17-36  Fill for Shipping and Docking Facilities Engulfing Marsh at Buffalo, New
                              York   ...................................................................           71

                       17-37  Canoga Marsh on Cayuga Lake          ........................................        72

                       17-38  Sodus Bay Marsh on Lake Ontario          ....................................        72

                       17-39  Forest Regeneration of the Same Site Over a 41-Year Period (1926-1967)
                              in Cheboygan County, Michigan, 1926         .................................        81

                       17-40  Forest Regeneration on the Same Site Over a 41-Year Period (1926-1967)
                              in Cheboygan County, Michigan, 1967          .................................       82

                       17-41  The Recent Shift to Monoculture Throughout Extensive Portions of
                              Planning Subarea 4.2 Has Had an Adverse Effect on Wildlife            ..........     87

                       17-42  Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County,
                              Ohio   ...................................................................           87

                  xvi Appendix 17

                       Figure                                                                                  Page

                       17-43  Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County,
                              Ohio   ...................................................................         88

                       17-44  Looking Across Little Auglaize from County Road 72 Bridge           ..........     88

                       17-45  Urban Encroachment-an Ever-Present Factor in Southern Great Lakes
                              Wildlife Habitat    .......................................................        90

                       17-46  Two Satisfied Resident Pennsylvania Hunters         .........................      99

                       17-47  Typical Northern Wisconsin Potential Forest Game Habitat Treatment
                              Site Showing Residual Aspen, Birch, and Maple Following a Commercial
                              Aspen Harvest      ........................................................        103

                       17-48  Northern Wisconsin Forest Game Habitat          .............................      103

                                                       INTRODUCTION

                    The study area includes portions of seven         sidered "present" are based on the year 1970
                  Great Lakes Basin States: Minnesota, Wis-           unless otherwise indicated.
                  consin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,        The objectives of the study at the State level
                  New York, and all of Michigan. The scope of         vary with each State and are keyed to the
                  this Type I framework study includes inven-         needs of each planning subarea. Although the
                  tory of the present wildlife resource situation,    Great Lakes Basin Framework Study em-
                  assessment of present State programs and            phasizes the study of river basin groups, the
                  plans for increased management, assessment          Great Lakes Basin Commission also consid-
                  of the losses in resource acreage and other         ered the Great Lakes Region as 15 planning
                  problem s,'computation of present resource          subareas, using county lines as boundaries.
                  use, and projection of future use.                  Since most available data on wildlife and its
                    In keeping with the guidelines established        use (particularly hunting and trapping) are
                  by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, data           available on a State and county basis, this ap-
                  and information in this report that are con-        pendix is geared to the planning subareas.

                                                                  xvii

                              71                                                                                                                                                                                      wo.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             S
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LEGEND

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Great Lakes Region Ban
                              01

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Planning Subareas
                                        MINL                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Q                  Subregion number
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Planning Subarea nu
                                                                                                          LAKE             SUPERIOR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            0               (cities) Standard Matt
                              M

                                                       A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        STA U              k s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ONTARIO                                                                        ERE=::=EEE==[--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            20     0     10         40     60

                                                                                                                                                                                                Mary. Ri-
                                                                                                                             MICHIGAN
                                                   Oi                                                                                                             .4
                                                                                                                IVI,
                              Gq                                                                                                                                                                                             ct@    7
                                                                                                                                                                    ad
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             GEORGIAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 MAY

                                                                                                                                                                                                               LAKE@URON
                                                                                                WISCON                                                                                  A.    b4,
                              M
                                                                                                                                Gree
                                                                                                                                say                              Va.                                                                                              Ni-
                                                                                                                                                                 ZE                                                                                                                   L               NTARI
                                                                                                                                                X                             HIGAN                                                                                                                SANADA -
                                                                                                                                           I Z 3'                                                                                                                                           -U,,ITED STAYES
                                                                                                                                             A%                                             City
                                                                                                                                                                                .. .... K,.-                                                                                                      n                 R host r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Man-
                                                                                                                                                            milt ago"                                                                                                       Ri-             sun&
                                                                                                                 miliesuk                                                                                                                                                                                           %.
                                                                                                                                                                        (;.--I    ft..                 Flint                St. Clair Raw                                                                           L. ,
                                                                                                                                                            + Grand bVids               Iasi                                                                                                NEW            ORK
                                                                                                                                                                        r273            Iasi                                 W,                                      I
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Detroit            St. Clair                        rfis
                                                                                                  ILLINOIS                                                                                                                                                           Is                                                    1(
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,vt
                                                                                                                                                                                   Jackson
                                                                                                                                                                                                               a                                                                                                    -E     YLY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Edo   L

                                                                                                                        Chicago 0                                           IGAN          ICH
                                                                                                    ILLINOIS                        -    Go If           Osouth Bond    INDANA                 10           ad.      a                       Cleveland
                                                                                                                                    I                                                                                                        U1             9 t
                                                                                                                                                                 Fort wayn         1                                     4                   CAlinin        64
                                                                                                                                              I N D I A N A                               U"o                                0 H 10

                                                              Section 1

                                                   BASIN DESCRIPTION

                   1.1 Biophysical Characteristics                     climate. The harsh climate and poor soils have
                                                                       permitted less agricultural activity which has
                                                                       allowed the large forested areas to remain in-
                   1.1.1 Lake Superior Basin                           tact.

                     This is the northernmost of the five Great
                   Lakes basins and has ecological characteris-        1.1.2 Lake Michigan Basin
                   tics dissimilar to the others. Vegetative cover
                   is predominantly a northern spruce-fir forest.        Lake Michigan and its extensive drainage
                   Bogs and their associated plant species are         basin encompass a wide variation in vegeta-
                   common, as are aspen stands. Wetlands in this       tive and climatological situations. The basin's
                   basin, with the exception of the St. Louis River    northern extremities are forested with a
                   area and a few others, are of low quality for       spruce-fir biorne on both sides of the Lake.
                   waterfowl. The soils, waters, and the Lake it-      South in Wisconsin the forest cover begins to
                   self are of low fertility because of the geology    change and gives way to agricultural lands at
                   of the basin and its weather conditions. Like       the Green Bay latitude. In Michigan, the
                   all of the Great Lakes basins, this basin was       forest cover extends further south, to approx-
                   once glaciated. The northern extremities of         imately the Muskegon-Clare-Midl and line.
                   the Great Lakes are part of what is referred to     Land around the southern tip of the Lake (ex-
                   as the Laurentian Shield, where the glacier         clusive of urban areas) is completely agricul-
                   scoured the earth's surface deep enough to          turalized with little tree cover remaining in
                   expose the granite substrata. Topsoils are          Indiana and Illinois.
                   thin and acidic and support only specialized          Wildlife species in the basin's northern
                   plant species. Runoff is low in nutrients.          areas are the same as those of Lake Superior
                   Streams, lakes, and marshes are infertile and       basin with the exception of the very rare
                   Lake Superior is a cold and infertile or oligo-     timber wolf. The black bear is found through-
                   trophic lake.                                       out the northern region. Farther south, wild-
                     The wildlife species of the basin reflect the     life species become less specialized. Farm
                   soil types and plant ecology. There are fewer       game such as the ring-necked pheasant,
                   species, lower densities, and more specializa-      cottontail rabbit, and gray and fox squirrel as
                   tion than elsewhere in the Great Lakes.             well as big game, including the white-tailed
                   Perhaps the timber wolf reflects this best.         deer and black bear, are common.
                   The wolf requires a vast unbroken wilderness          Planning Subarea 2.4 contains a pocket of
                   with few human intrusions. He also requires         prairie chicken habitat that supports a small
                   white-tailed deer and moose populations as          population of these rare birds. Another rare
                   well as smaller mammals in sufficient num-          species found in Planning Subarea 2.4 is the
                   bers to sustain him through the winter. Other       Kirtland's warbler, which nests in young pine
                   basin species include coyote, red fox, snow-        forest lands. Bald eagles and ospreys, which
                   shoe hare, ruffed grouse, black bear, bald          used to be common in the Green Bay area and
                   eagle, osprey, sharp-tailed grouse, wood-           in the islands and bays on the opposite side of
                   cock, spruce grouse, bobcat, lynx, and fur-         the Lake, are becoming less common but are
                   bearers including otter, fisher, beaver, mink,      still present seasonally. Remaining waterfowl
                   muskrat and pine marten.                            -marshes in the Green Bay area support nest-
                     The shorter growing season and colder cli-        ing and loafing waterfowl. Significant water-
                   mate, as well as precipitation amounts, have        fowl marshes exist in the Fox and Wolf River
                   an important influence on the vegetative type.      drainages and at Seney, Michigan. Small
                   The tree, shrub, and other plant species found      waterfowl marshes also exist at river mouths
                   in the Lake Superior basin are adapted to the       around the Lake.

                 2 Appendix 17

                   Degraded habitat in the urbanized south-          sin. Major unique features of the basin include
                 ern basin supports little wildlife. However,        the western shore marshes, Upper Sandusky
                 some paradoxes occur here. Large flocks of          River, Lake Erie Islands, Grand River Valley,
                 resting waterfowl are to be found off the Gary      Presque Isle Peninsula, Niagara Falls and
                 Steel complex during the fall. City parklands       several gorges in the eastern plateau. The
                 and forest preserves support small popula-          Erie basin can be divided into eastern and
                 tions of rabbits, squirrels, furbearers, and        western halves geologically. The flat lake
                 numerous species of songbirds. These animals        plain of the west is heavily farmed and ur-
                 and birds are just as important as the wilder-      banized. Cover, where it is found, is brushy,
                 ness species because they provide recreation        consisting of idle farmland, small woodlots,
                 and outdoor enjoyment in the urban areas.           and wooded stream bottoms. Stream gra-
                                                                     dients are very gentle and streams are wide,
                                                                     shallow, and slow-moving. The tree and shrub
                 1.1.3 Lake Huron Basin                              species are those of the eastern deciduous
                                                                     forest: oak, hickory, maple, beech, ash, elm,
                   The U.S. side of the Lake Huron basin is          hawthorn, aspen, alder, and dogwood.
                 equally divided into two physiographic re-            The very gently sloping character of the
                 gions. The northern half is rolling and vege-       west end of the basin changes almost imper-
                 tated with a variety of cover types including       ceptibly eastward, first to rolling country,
                 northern forest jack pine and other timber,         then to plateaus and glaciated valleys in New
                 open grassy areas, wooded bogs, and brush           York. Cover is much more extensive than in
                 lands. Many small lakes and marshes are pres-       the western half of the basin. Tree and shrub
                 ent, and this region is interlaced with many        species are the same as in the west but also
                 streams of high fish and wildlife value. The        include conifers-eastern hemlock, balsam fir,
                 southern half is generally flat terrain, heavily    white pine-and shrub species associated with
                 agriculturalized, and less wooded. Southern         northern hardwoods, such as azalea, laurel
                 streams are slow-moving and of lower quality        and rhododendron. The basin's wildlife in-
                 than northern streams, but wetlands impor-          cludes both those species adapted to farmed
                 tant to wildlife are present.                       areas and low-to-medium populations of forest
                   The most outstanding physiographic fea-           species. Although some white-tailed deer'are
                 ture is the Saginaw Bay complex. Many               found in the west, the Allegheny plateau in
                 thousands of acres of fine waterfowl marsh          the east is the best forest habitat, with white-
                 surround the open waters of the Bay and ex-         tailed deer, black bear, turkey, ruffed grouse
                 tend inland up the Saginaw River system. The        and squirrels present. Probably the most im-
                 Bay is a nationally known waterfowl concen-         portant wildlife populations of the basin are
                 tration area. Inland wetlands in the "Thumb"        the waterfowl located in the western basin
                 of Michigan also support nesting populations        and in scattered areas of the eastern basin.
                 of geese and ducks.
                   The variety of wildlife species includes black
                 bear, white-tailed deer, elk, turkey, sharp-        1.1.5 Lake Ontario Basin
                 tailed grouse, prairie chicken, mourning dove,
                 ring-necked pheasant, woodcock, ruffed                The Lake Ontario basin is the last in the
                 grouse, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, gray      Great Lakes drainage system and therefore
                 squirrel, fox squirrel, aquatic and terrestial      the lowest in water level elevation. Relief in
                 furbearers, bobcat, waterfowl, shore birds,         the basin, which includes the Adirondack
                 passerine birds and other songbirds. The en-        Mountains, is the highest in the Great Lakes.
                 dangered Kirtland's warbler nests in the ba-        The climate is relatively cool, and watershed
                 sin. Eagles and osprey are also residents.          fertility is low in the uplands.
                                                                       A wide variation of sometimes complicated
                                                                     topographic features exists here. The level
                 1.1.4 Lake Erie Basin                               plain around the edge of the Lake gives way to
                                                                     rolling, glaciated topography. The uplands are
                   Erie, the southernmost of the Great Lakes,        plateaus or glaciated hills with steep slopes.
                 is the most fertile limnologically and mor-         Streams near the headwaters are fast-moving
                 phologically. Historically, some of the largest     and cold, with high water quality.
                 expanses of fine waterfowl marsh in the U.S.          Cover is good over most of the basin. Farm-
                 existed here. Highly productive marshes,            ing is restricted to localized areas of suitable
                 river mouths, and shoals still exist in the ba-     soils, secondary forest cover remains

                                                                                                  Basin Description 3

                   elsewhere. Tree species in its eastern half are      ant, gray and fox squirrels, and other farm-
                   those of the northern forests: balsam, fir,          game species are found in medium-to-high
                   white pine, hemlock, birch, spruce, maple, and       densities. Wildlife habitat is varied and is gen-
                   aspen. Tree species common to the deciduous          erally of high quality.
                   forest are found at the lower elevations in the        Numerous areas throughout the marsh-
                   western half of the basin. The higher eleva-         island complex of the St. Lawrence River have
                   tions of the western half also have the north-       unusual geologic, floral, and faunal features.
                   ern tree species.
                      Bays, river mouths, and shoreline estuaries
                   in the St. Lawrence River include many thou-
                   sands of acres of some of the finest freshwater      1.2 Demographic Considerations
                   marshes in New York State. There are also
                   high quality inland marshes in the river sys-          Human populations are shown in Table 17-1
                   tems, particularly downstream from the               for the years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 2000,
                   Finger Lakes and in the St. Lawrence Plain.          and 2020. Most planning subarea projections
                      Wildlife species include waterfowl and            indicate that populations will at least double
                   shorebirds, farm and forest wildlife. White-         during the study period. In three planning
                   tailed deer, black bear, ruffed grouse, and          subareas, however, the increase ranges from a
                   other forest species are found in medium den-        low of only 4 percent to a high of 35 percent for
                   sities. Cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheas-        the 50-year period.

                   TABLE 17-1 Population of Great Lakes Basin by Plan Area and Planning Subarea

                                                           Total Population (Thousands)
                                                 Census Final Count                                Projections
                                         1940        1950        1960       1970           1980       2000        2020

                   Great Lakes
                   Basin Total           18,791      21,772     26,364      29,332       33,566      42,338      53,497

                   Plan Area    1.0         533         513        545         533           538         594         669
                      PSA 1.1               336         330        359         345           367         417         475
                      PSA 1.2               197         183        186         188           171         177         194

                   Plan Area    2.0      8,673       9,953      12,041      13,517       15,542      19,645      24,830
                      PSA 2.1               771         817        896      1,005          1,082      1,358       1,726
                      PSA 2.2            6,034       6,919       8,481      9,493        10,999      13,844      17,386
                      PSA 2.3            1,499       1,807       2,211      2,523          2,914      3,772       4,876
                      PSA 2.4               369         410        453         496           547         671         842

                   Plan Area    3.0         732         840      1,056      1,236          1,411      1,810       2,324
                      PSA 3.1                 94        102        119         142           164         209         267
                      PSA 3.2               638         738        937      1,094          1,247      1,601       2,057
                   Plan Area    4.0      7,095       8,520      10,466      11,514       13,299      16,794      21,281
                      PSA 4.1            2,697       3,440       4,292      4,848          5,802      7,425       9,568
                      PSA 4.2            1,176       1,325       1,566      1,725          1,963      2,474       3,116
                      PSA 4.3            1,887       2,233       2,825      3,099          3,476      4,389       5,527
                      PSA 4.4            1,335       1,522       1,783      1,842          2,058      2,506       3,070

                   Plan Area    5.0      1,758       1,946       2,256      2,532          2,776      3,495       4,393
                      PSA 5.1               620         682        798         946           978      1,222       1,538
                      PSA 5.2               940      1,057       1,236      1,362          1,572      2,016       2,556
                      PSA 5.3               198         207        222         224           226         257         299

                                                             Section 2

                                          PRESENT STATUS OF WILDLIFE

                  2.1 Basin Wildlife Populations and Trends            2.1.2 Wisconsin

                                                                         Decreased quality of white-tailed deer
                  2.1.1 Minnesota                                      habitat due to successional changes is re-
                                                                       flected in Table 17-2. However, ruffed grouse
                    Long-term trends in the habitat are shown          and black bear populations are high. Grouse
                  in Table 17-2. Plant succession changes have         numbers, which tend to fluctuate, are difficult
                  not benefited white-tailed deer and sharp-           to correlate with the change in forest succes-
                  tailed grouse, and the population trend of           sion. However, decreases in aspen stands
                  these species is downward. The trend toward          mean that as aspens give way to climax forest
                  an increase in small-game species populations        species, grouse populations will decline on the
                  indicates conversion of forest land to agricul-      long term. The bear, on the other hand, is less
                  tural and other uses. Historically strong            affected by plant successional changes be-
                  species such as marten and fisher are making         cause it is more dependent on large blocks of
                  a strong comeback. Aquatic furbearers and            undeveloped land which are plentiful in Plan-
                  waterfowl are not numerous, due to the low           ning Subarea 1.1.
                  water fertility and lack of food plants and or-        Table 17-3 shows a more diverse habitat in
                  ganisms. The area's most famous resident             the Wisconsin portion of Planning Subarea
                  wildlife species, the timber wolf, remains sta-      2.1. Medium densities of farm-game species
                  ble over much of his range. A marked decrease        exist here, as compared to lower levels farther
                  in the deer herd could, however, reduce wolf         north. At the same time, medium and high
                  populations.                                         densities of forest game also   exist here. Me-

                                    fA                                                         J,
                                                                                                        ro
                                                                J                                          U,
                                                    % mhib@
                                                     A

                                                            Ur

                                                                                                              "n-
                                                                                                           I.-A

                               Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
                  FIGURE17-2 Typical Minnesota Forest Habitat in Planning Subarea 1.1. (Left) Openings made by
                  beaver ponds improve quality of wildlife habitat in extensive forest areas. (Right) Illustration of a
                  good mixture of aspen and conifers. Young aspens are ideal food for wildlife.

                                                                    5

                   6 Appendix 17

                   dium densities of waterfowl and furbearers               The status of wildlife and its habitat in the
                   are supported by sizeable marshes.                     three-county Indiana portion of Planning
                     Nearly uniform farm-game habitat exists in           Subarea 4.2 is poor (Table 17-10).
                   the southern Planning Subarea 2.2. Habitat
                   near cities can both increase and decrease in
                   value, since urbanization has a profound ef-           2.1.5 Michigan
                   fect on wildlife populations. In the interim be-
                   tween cessation of farming and development,              The status and density of wildlife species in
                   farmland reverts to an early successional              the Upper Peninsula including Planning Sub-
                   (brushy) stage that temporarily improves               areas 1.2,2.1, and 2.4 are shown by Tables 17-6
                   habitat for wildlife such as cottontail rabbit,        and 17-7, respectively. The full spectrum of
                   fox, raccoon and songbirds. However, high              northern Great Lakes forest wildlife exists
                   human populations exert enough pressure to             here as well as healthy populations of farm
                   preclude species with special habitat re-              game.
                   quirements such as the bobcat, beaver, and               Changing forest succession is as important
                   ruffed grouse (Table 17-3).                            to wildlife here as it is in the western Great
                                                                          Lakes areas because similar trends in forest
                                                                          management and forest ecology are reducing
                   2.1.3 Illinois                                         the habitat value for wildlife.
                                                                            White-tailed deer populations are of
                     Urbanization in the Illinois portion of Plan-        medium-to-low density and are slowly declin-
                   ning Subarea 2.2 has progressed to the point           ing due to decreased habitat quality. Although
                   where only scattered areas of habitat support          ruffed grouse appear to be at a high point in
                   a diversity of wildlife species (Table 17-4).          their cycle, it is difficult to relate this high to
                   Habitat reduction by intense human pressure            habitat quality.
                   has reduced farm game and furbearers near                A fair interspersion of farmland exists in the
                   the Chicago metropolitan area to -low levels.          Upper Peninsula of Michigan as is indicated
                   White-tailed deer, surprisingly, are expanding         by the presence of cottontail rabbits and
                   their range in some counties. It is probable           pheasants. Waterfowl habitat is plentiful, but
                   that this is due to adaptation to agricultural         not all is of high quality. Furbearer popula-
                   conditions, as well as increases in acres of           tions are of medium-to-high density and in
                   brush lands in place of cultivated land.               some cases are increasing. Marten and fisher
                                                                          have been reintroduced in the Upper Penin-
                                                                          sula and are holding their own. The lynx has
                   2.1.4 Indiana                                          reestablished itself in the last two decades and
                                                                          is slowly increasing in numbers in remote
                     The same varied effects of urbanization on           parts of the Upper Peninsula.
                   habitat are also evident in the Indiana portion          The lower Peninsula has a much broader
                   of Planning Subarea 2.2 with increasing and            spectrum of wildlife habitats than the Upper
                   decreasing populations of various species. In-         Peninsula. Species diversity, density, and
                   creases in cottontail rabbit and ring-necked           status for Planning Subareas 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, and
                   pheasant populations reflected in Table 17-4           .4.1 are noted in Tables 17-5, 17-7, and 17-8,
                   could be attributed to increased brushy habitat        respectively.
                   due to idle farms in the vicinity of cities. These       The northern half of the Lower Peninsula is
                   increase's will probably be temporary since            nearly identical to the Upper Peninsula in
                   idle farmland will soon be -developed, with a          habitat and species diversity. White-tailed
                   resulting loss of habitat.                             deer and turkey populations are in better con-
                     In Planning Subarea 2.3 the wildlife situa-          dition here, probably due to slightly better
                   tion is much brighter (Table 17-5). Medium             habitat. Forest succession changes have not
                   densities of white-tailed deer, small game, and        been quite as detrimental here as farther
                   furbearers, with a trend toward an increase in         north. Small-game populations are generally
                   these species, and others, indicates that ur-          of medium density, with ruffed grouse increas-
                   banization is not having much effect. Habitat          ing here as elsewhere in the Basin. Woodcock
                   in this part of Indiana is better than elsewhere       are also on the increase here, but since they
                   in the lower tier of Basin states. A good diver-       are migratory, it is difficult to relate density to
                   sity of habitat types exists, including wet-           local habitat conditions.
                   lands, brushy land, meadows, cultivated land,            Ring-necked pheasant densities are
                   sizeable tracts of woodland, lakes, and stream         medium where suitable habitat occurs. At one
                   bottomlands.                                           time this bird was very common in the

                                                                                           Present Status of Wildlife 7

                   Thumb-Saginaw Bay farmlands, but a decline            tant to waterfowl and furbearers. Increased
                   in habitat quality has reduced the population.        urbanization has resulted in either outright
                     A small population of rare prairie chickens         destruction of wetlands or degradation that
                   appears to be losing its battle to declining          reduces total productivity. Human distur-
                   habitat. Eagles and osprey are also becoming          bance of marshlands has resulted in the de-
                   more rare. There is considerable scientific           cline of populations of water-dependent
                   evidence that the decline of these birds is           wildlife in the Saginaw Bay area, St. Clair
                   largely due to a chlorinated hydrocarbon-             River, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie shoreline, and
                   induced reproductive failure as a result of en-       inland southern Michigan. Although the re-
                   vironmental contamination caused by the               maining wetlands are still highly productive
                   widespread use of pesticides. Other contribut-        wildlife areas, there has been a noticeable re-
                   ing causes are loss of habitat, human distur-         duction in total numbers of various species.
                   bance at nesting site, and illegal shooting.          This is especially true of herons, bitterns,
                     The status of the Kirtland's warbler is un-         rails, the sandhill crane, and shorebirds.
                   certain. Joint private, State, and Federal
                   habitat management has been initiated. How-
                   ever, the 1971 survey indicated that this has         2.1.6 Ohio
                   not been sufficient to prevent population de-
                   cline. Further effort is being made to assure           The density and status of wildlife popula-
                   survival of this species, with particular atten-      tions in the Great Lakes Basin portion of Ohio
                   tion being given to the problem of cowbird            are noted in Tables 17-9 and 17-10.
                   competition with Kirtland's warbler nest us-            Planning Subarea 4.2 wildlife habitat has
                   age.                                                  generally undergone the greatest detrimental
                     Most furbearers are doing well except in            change of all Basin planning subareas.
                   areas of marsh drainage and other habitat             Large-scale destruction of marshes has oc-
                   disturbances. The Canada lynx has not yet             curred in the past. More recently, changes in
                   found its way south across the Straits of Mac-        agriculture toward clean cultivation, larger
                   kinac or reestablished itself. Bobcat numbers         equipment, and larger fields with the same
                   are low-to-absent, which may indicate that            crops each year have seriously reduced the
                   while cat habitat exists, there are other limit-      value of other habitat types. Rabbits, pheas-
                   ing factors such as an inadequate food supply.        ants, squirrels, and bobwhite quail are declin-
                   Populations of the snowshoe hare, a prime             ing in this planning subarea, indicating that
                   prey species for both lynx and bobcat, are also       upland habitat is being reduced in productiv-
                   low-to-absent. Like many other wildlife prey          ity and quantity.
                   species the hare is highly cyclic. Wooded               Raptorial birds are also declining in num-
                   swamps, preferred habitat, are essential dur-         bers. Part of their decline could be due to re-
                   ing lows in the cycle. Drainage of wooded wet-        duced prey species, but reproductive failure
                   lands can be very detrimental to this animal          due to pesticides is undoubtedly a contribut-
                   and other members of the food chain which             ing factor.
                   depend upon this type of habitat.                       The white-tailed deer increase in northwest
                     The lower half of the Lower Peninsula has           Ohio is independent of declines in other
                   more homogeneous habitat than anywhere                wildlife species. Deer habitat here was
                   else in Michigan. With the exception of               under-occupied, but in recent years restrictive
                   numerous wetlands, a mixture of woods and             hunting regulations in Ohio and Michigan
                   agricultural lands predominate. White-tailed          have helped the herd increase in size. Also,
                   deer, waterfowl, and small game are the major         movement into Ohio from higher-density
                   species. High deer populations indicate that          areas in the two adjoining States has been an
                   Planning Subarea 3.2 (Table 17-8) probably            important factor in increasing the population.
                   has a higher percentage of woodland habitat             Furbearers are also losing ground as the
                   than other southern Michigan planning sub-            quality of the marsh habitat declines due to
                   areas where white-tailed deer populations are         water quality degradation. Muskrats in the
                   medium or low. Reversion of former agricul-           northwest Ohio marshes are the principal
                   tural lands to brush in the vicinity of cities has    reason for Ohio consistently having the sec-
                   increased the productivity of deer and other          ond highest muskrat harvest in the United
                   woodland game species in southern Michigan.           States. Loss of any significant amount of re-
                   Clean farming practices in some areas have            maining habitat and consequent reduction of
                   been important factors in the decline of the          muskrats will result in local economic losses.
                   pheasant from former high population levels.            Habitat in the northeast quarter of Ohio def-
                     Loss of marsh habitat is particularly impor-        initely differs from the previously described

                  8 Appendix 17

                  northwest quarter. A greater diversity of            and streams are doing well, with high popula-
                  cover exists and the impact of agriculture is        tions of muskrat and beaver.
                  less intense. Unlike the northwest portion of
                  the State, there are no large marshes and
                  waterfowl habitat is scattered.                      2.1.8 New York
                    The forest cover in this area has not been
                  appreciably reduced in recent years, but the           Wildlife density and status for the New York
                  timber stands are younger. Therefore, the            portion of Planning Subarea 4.4 and Planning
                  value for white-tailed deer and other wood-          Subareas 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 is noted in Tables
                  land game has increased. Northeast Ohio has          17-11, 17-12, and 17-13 through 17-16, respec-
                  medium densities of deer and ruffed grouse.          tively. A diversity of habitat exists across the
                    Change in ownership of nonurban land from          New York portion of the basin, making it pos-
                  agricultural to other private interests has re-      sible for a greater-variety of wildlife to exist,
                  sulted in many farms reverting to early suc-         as well as making the habitat more produc-
                  cessional stages. This is occurring on a broad       tive.
                  scale in northeast Ohio, as elsewhere in the           Wildlife habitat in Planning Subarea 4.4 is
                  lower tier of Basin planning subareas, and has       primarily of the farm-game type. It is located
                  greatly improved upland game habitat. How-           along the lake plain and hill country, extend-
                  ever, the decline in crop production has hurt        ing northeast from the Pennsylvania line to
                  the productivity of habitat for some seed-           the Lake Ontario shore. This land supports
                  eating species, resulting in declines of the         medium densities of most farm-game species
                  Ring-necked pheasant and bobwhite quail.             except the mourning dove, which is of low de-n-
                  Other wildlife species (with the exception of        sity.
                  raptors, which are declining nearly                    High-quality upland forest habitat is found
                  everywhere) are doing well in this part of the       in the southeast corner of the planning sub-
                  State.                                               area. Medium white-tailed deer densities and
                                                                       occasional black bear and turkey (increasing)
                                                                       are indicators of the habitat quality. However,
                  2.1.7 Pennsylvania                                   ruffed grouse populations are of low density
                                                                       here, in contrast to highs elsewhere in the
                    Wildlife habitat in Erie County, Pennsyl-          Great Lakes Basin.
                  vania, is similar to that in northeast Ohio.           The Niagara River is an important water-
                  However, a transition occurs here. Eastward          fowl loafing and feeding area during migra-
                  the land becomes more hilly and wooded. De-          tion. Scattered small wetlands are found
                  clining farming is allowing the land to revert       mostly near the Lake Ontario shore, but none
                  to early successional brush and young trees.         are of great importance.
                  Hawthorn thickets in former farm fields are            Planning Subarea 5.1 is equally divided into
                  common. Habitat value for upland game and            forested uplands (southern half) and agricul-
                  white-tailed deer has increased in recent            turalized lowlands (northern half). The low-
                  years.                                               land portion contains numerous wetlands in
                    Table 17-11 indicates density and status for       lake bays and in inland areas.
                  the wildlife species in Erie County, Pennsyl-          Forest game populations in the southern
                  vania. White-tailed deer are at medium levels        half of the planning subarea, including white-
                  and stable, while ruffed grouse are high and         tailed deer, black bear, turkey, and snowshoe
                  increasing. Turkeys have been stocked and            hare, are of low-to-medium density. Turkey is
                  are found in low levels in the southeastern          increasing. Although high-quality forest
                  portion of the county. With the change in land       habitat exists here, the bobcat is absent.
                  use, some farm-game animals are declining.             Farm game is doing well in the lowland por-
                  This county never had good pheasant habitat          tion of the Planning Subarea 5.1 and includes
                  and populations are low. Mourning doves, also        high pheasant populations and medium popu-
                  seed eaters, are at medium population den-           lations of cottontail rabbits, mourning doves,
                  sities and increasing.                               and squirrels. Woodcock populations are also
                    Op en water on Lake Erie and Erie Bay has          of medium density. High pheasant popula-
                  declined in value for waterfowl due to               tions, unusual in the basin, may indicate that
                  pollution-caused reduction of food organisms.        changes in farming practices detrimental to
                  Ducks are still found in high numbers, but are       habitat have not occurred here as extensively
                  decreasing. Furbearers in the inland marshes         as they have elsewhere.

                                                                                       Present Status of Wildlife 9

                    Many furbearers occur at medium densities         tion of the St. Lawrence River island complex.
                  in the shore marshes and the inland river as-       Wildlife status and density figures are shown
                  sociated marshes and streams.                       by zones (eight in all), because many differ-
                                                                      ences in habitat types exist across the plan-
                    To the east is Planning Subarea 5.2, a large      ning subarea (Tables 17-13 through 17-16 and
                  area which encompasses a wide variety of            Figure 17-3).
                  habitats, including agricultural lands, small
                  woodlots, idle farmlands, marshy stream bot-          Forest-game populations vary. White-tailed
                  toms, lake associated marshes, wooded river         deer populations vary from low to high, black
                  bottoms, and intermediate and mature                bear from low to high, turkey from absent to
                  forests. A broad urban belt bisects the plan-       -low, and ruffed grouse from low to high. The
                  ning subarea from east to west, and expansion       more rare forest species such as bobcat, mar-
                  of this zone is diminishing wildlife habitat.       ten, fisher and spruce grouse range from ab-
                  However, idle farmland is more common in the        sent to low. However, fisher populations range
                  vicinity of urban areas, and increases in this      from medium to high in the three Adirondack
                  acreage partially compensate for habitat            zones shown in Figure 17-3.
                  losses.
                                                                        Furbearers are generally of medium density
                    A greater diversity of wildlife species exists    throughout the area, with some species at
                  here because of the variety of habitat types.       high levels in most zones. Mink and muskrat
                  Forest-game populations in the eastern and          are common at high levels in the planning
                  southern portions of the planning subarea are       subarea. Otter population is also high in the
                  at low-to-medium densities. Black bears are         western and central Adirondack zones, indi-
                  common in the northern part of Herkimer             cating high-quality stream habitat. The oc-
                  County but occur only occasionally elsewhere,       currence of other unusual wildlife species at
                  probably due to the proximity of humans.            high population levels is indicative of the high
                  Bobcats are also found in low numbers in the        value of the wilderness habitat. One interest-
                  forested portions of the planning subarea.          ing species, the coyote, has become well estab-
                  Since these cats are moderately tolerant of         lished in Planning Subarea 5.3, adding more
                  humans, their presence is dependent on              diversity to the fauna.
                  adequate second-growth hardwood and conif-
                  erous forests. Rodent and other small mam-            Although due to State policy no manage-
                  mal populations are necessary food sources to       ment practices can be carried out in the
                  bobcats but are probably not a limiting factor      Adirondack Forest Preserve, there is benefit
                  here. Marten are occasionally seen in the           to wilderness-dwelling animals. These species
                  planning subarea's coniferous forests. White-       are adapted to old growth and climax forests
                  tailed deer are at medium density, and tur-         and do not need the diversity created by man-
                  keys at low density but increasing. Other resi-     agement practices.
                  dent forest species include snowshoe hare,
                  ruffed grouse, squirrels, and porcupines. The         Farm-game habitat is not as plentiful as
                  farm-game species, rabbit, ring-necked              forest and fore st-transition habitat. Farm-
                  pheasant and mourning dove, are doing well.         game species are generally restricted to the
                  The woodcock is at medium density. Fur-             farm lowlands along the Lake Ontario and St.
                  bearers are also thriving. There is a high          Lawrence River shorelines. Cottontail popu-
                  muskrat population and medium mink,                 lations vary from low to exceptionally high
                  weasel, beaver, raccoon, skunk and opossum          densities, and ring-necked pheasants and
                  populations; only the otter and fisher are at a     mourning doves are scarce. A fairly stable,
                  low level. The planning subarea's plentiful         huntable population of Hungarian partridge
                  wetland habitat is important to most fur-           persists in several of the more active farming
                  bearers as well as waterfowl. It is also impor-     areas in this lowland zone.
                  tant to the occasionally seen bald and golden
                  eagles.                                               The marshes of the St. Lawrence River and
                                                                      other river valleys support high populations of
                    Planning Subarea 5.3 is the most complex          ducks and geese. Large wetland acreages in
                  region of the New York portion of the Great         those areas serve as production areas as well
                  Lakes Basin. It includes a large part of the        as resting and feeding areas for migrating
                  Adirondack Forest Preserve as well as a por-        waterfowl.                   (continued on page 26)

                        10 Appendix 17

                                                             ST LAWRENCE PLAIN

                                                                                                                                                             ADIRONDACK
                        EASTERN ONTARIO                                                                                                                      TRANSITION
                                  PLAIN

                                                                                                                                                              CENTRAL
                                                  of                                                                      ST, LA RENCE                      ADIRONDACKS

                                                                                                                       WESTERN ADIRONDACKS

                                                LAKE                                                                        BLACK RIVER VALLEY
                                             ONTARIO                  JEFFERSON

                                             CENTRAL TU              HILL

                                              TUG HILL TRANSITION

                                                                                                                                 LEGEND

                                                                            SCALE IN MILES                                HABITAT ZONE BOUNDARY

                                                                                   10  15   20
                                                                                                                          COUNTY BOUNDARY

                         FIGURE 17-3 Wildlife Habitat Zones, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York

                                                                                                                   Present Status of Wildlife 11

                       TABLE 17-2 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wisconsin
                                                                  Planning Subarea 1.1--14innesota                    Planning Subarea 1.1--Wisconsin
                          Class and Species                Density    Trend               Notes                Density    Trend              Notes

                          BIG GAME

                           White-tailed Deer               Medium     Decreasing     Due to forest succes-     Medium     Decreasing    Douglas County best
                                                                                      sion and heavy snow
                           Black Bear                      High       Stable                                   High       Stable        Top harvest in State
                           Moose                           High       Stable         High in suitable range    Low        Stable        Only area in State

                          WATERFOWL

                           Ducks                           Low        Stable         Poor waterfowl area       Low        Stable
                           Geese                           Low        Stable         Poor waterfowl area       Low        Stable

                          SMALL GAME

                           Ring-necked Pheasant            Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Ruffed Grouse                   High       Stable         Present top cycle         High       Stable
                           Snowshoe Hare                   Medium     Increasing                               Medium     Stable
                           Cottontail Rabbit               ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Sharp-tailed Grouse             Low        Decreasing                               Low        Stable        Best range in State
                           Woodcock                        Medium     Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Mourning Dove                   Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Fox Squirrel                    ------     ------                                   Lov        Stable
                           Gray Squirrel                   ------     ------                                   Medium     Stable

                          FURBEARERS

                           Muskrat                         Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Mink                            Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Beaver                          Medium     Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Weasel                          Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Raccoon                         Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Otter                           Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Skunk                           Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Opossum                         ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Badger                          ------     ------                                   Medium     Stable

                          NON-GAME

                           Woodchuck                       Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Porcupine                       Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Red Fox                         Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Gray Fox                        Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Bobcat                          Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Crow                            Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Raven                           Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Red Squirrel                    Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Coyote                          Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Increasing
                           Raptors                         Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable

                          RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS    UNDETERMINED(S)l
                           Eastern Timber Wolf (E)         Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable        Rare-unknown packs
                           Pine Martin (S)                 Low        Increasing                               ------     ------
                           Fisher (S)                      High       Stable                                   Low        Increasing
                           Canada Lynx (S)                 Low        Stable                                   Low        Decreasing
                           Bald Eagle (E)2                 Low        Stable                                   Low        Decreasing    Downward trend
                           American Osprey   (S)           Low        Stable                                   Low        Decreasing    Downward trend
                           Artic Peregrine   Falcon (E)                              Rare transient            Low        Decreasing    Migrant
                           Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)                                   Rare transient            Medium     Decreasing    Occasional breeder
                          UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3
                           Spruce Grouse                   Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Golden Eagle                                              Rare transient            Low        Decreasing    Occasional migrant
                           Sandhill Crane                  ------     ------                                   Low        Stable

                          1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1968 Edition.
                          Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                          2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                          endangered status being the important consideration.
                          3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                       12 Appendix 17

                       TABLE 17-3 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.1 and 2.2, Wisconsin

                                                                 Planning Subarea 2.1--Wisconsin                     Planning Subarea 2.2--Wisconsiri
                           Class and Species               Density    Trend              Notes                 Density' Trerfd              Notes

                           BIG GAME
                           White-tailed Deer               Varied     Stable        Mod-Brown County &         Low       Stable
                                                                                     S.E. of PSA. High---
                                                                                     Marquette, Waushara,
                                                                                     & Shawano Counties
                           Black Bear                      Medium     Stable        Only north of line         ------    ------
                                                                                     Green Bay to Shawano
                           Turkey                          Low        Stable        Local populations only     ------    ------
                           WATERFOWL
                           Ducks                           Medium     Increasing    SE--high; N--low           Medium    Stable
                           Geese                           Medium     Increasing    SE--high; N--low           Medium    Stable
                           SMALL GPME
                           Cottontail Rabbit               Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Ring-necked Pheasant            Varied     Stable        High--Fond Du Lac &        Medium    Stable        High--Racine &
                                                                                     Winnebago Counties                                 Kenosha Counties.
                                                                                     None--Forest, Flor-
                                                                                     ence & Menominee
                           Ruffed Grouse                   Varied     Stable        Low--Brown, Fond Du        Low       Stable        Only--Ozaukee
                                                                                     Lac, Manitowoc, &                                  Washington Counties
                                                                                     Winnebago Counties
                           Gray Squirrel                   Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Fox Squirrel                    Varied     Stable        Common in S; un-           Medium    Stable
                                                                                     common in N
                           Snowshoe Hare                   Varied     Stable        None--S Counties           ------    ------
                           Sharp-tailed Grouse             Low        Decreasing                               ------    ------
                           Woodcock                        Medium     Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Mourning Dove                   Varied     Stable        More--S Counties           Medium    Stable
                           Bobwhite  Quail                 Low        Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Hungarian Partridge             Medium     Stable        Most--Brown, Calumet,      Low       Decreasing
                                                                                     & Kewaunee Counties

                           FURBEARERS
                           Muskrat                         High       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Mink                            Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Beaver                          Varied     Increasing    Low--7 SE Counties         ------    ------
                           Weasel                          Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Raccoon                         High       Increasing                               High      Increasing
                           Otter                           Varied     Stable                                   ------    ------
                           Skunk                           Medium     Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Opossum                         Medium     Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Badger                          Low        Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           NON-GAME
                           Woodchuck                       Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Increasing
                           Porcupine                       Varied     Stable        Low/none--7 SE Counties    ------    ------
                           Red Fox                         Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Gray Fox                        Low        Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Bobcat                          Low        Stable        Low--7 SE Counties         ------    ------
                           Grow                            Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Red Squirrel                    Medium     Stable                                   Low       Stable        Some --N Counties
                           Raven                           Medium     Stable                                   ------    ------
                           Raptors                         Medium     Decreasing                               Medium    Stable
                           Coyote                          Varied     Stable        Low--7 SE Counties         ------    ------
                           RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UNDETERMINED(S)l
                           Fisher   (S)                    Low        Increasing    Local populations          ------    ------
                           Canada   Lynx (S)               Low        Stable        Very rare                  ------    ------
                           Bald Eagle (E)2                 Low        Decreasing    Some inland hatches        Low       Decreasing    Rare Migrant
                           American Osprey  (S)            Low        Decreasing    Downward trend             Low       Decreasing    No breeders, some
                                                                                                                                        migrants.
                           Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)     Low                      Rare Migrant               Low                     Rare Migrant
                           No. Gr. Prairie Chicken (R)     Low        Decreasing    Marquette & Waushara       ------    ------
                                                                                     Counties
                           Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)         Medium     Stable        Breeds some                Medium    Stable        Migrant
                           UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3
                           Sandhill Crane                  Varied     Increasing    S only; most--SW in        Low       Stable
                                                                                     Green Lake &
                                                                                     Waushara Counties
                           Spruce Grouse                   Low        Increasing                               ------    ------
                           Golden Eagle                    Low        Decreasing    Rare migrant               Low                     Very rare migrant
                           1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of  the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition
                           Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office. of Endangered Species.
                           2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                           endangered status being the important consideration.
                           3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                                    Present Status of Wildlife 13

                        TABLE 17-4 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.2, Indiana and Illinois
                                                                   Planning Subarea 2.2--Indiana                 Planning Subarea 2.2--Illinois (see note)
                             Class and Species              Density    Trend               Notes                 Density   Trend              Notes

                             BIG GAME

                             White-tailed Deer              Medium     Increasing                                Medium    Increasing    Inc. some counties.
                                                                                                                                         Expanding range
                             WATERFOWL
                             Ducks                          Medium     Decreasing     Down 1970-71               Medium    Decreasing    Depends on annual
                                                                                                                                         Canada production
                             Geese                          Law        Decreasing     Down 1970-71               High      Increasing    Depends on annual
                                                                                                                                         Canada production

                             SMALL GAME
                             Cottontail Rabbit              Low        Increasing     Up 1969-70                 Low       Decreasing    Low due to urbaniza-
                                                                                                                                         tion and habitat
                                                                                                                                         destruction
                             Ring-necked Pheasant           Medium     Increasing     Up 1969-70                 Medium    Decreasing    Low due to urbaniza-
                                                                                                                                         tion and habitate
                                                                                                                                         destruction
                             Gray Squirrel                  Low        Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Fox Squirrel                   Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Increasing    State upward trend
                             Woodcock                       Low        Stable                                    Low       Stable
                             Mourning Dove                  Medium     Stable                                    High      Decreasing
                             Bobwhite Quail                 Low        Increasing     Up 1969-70                 Medium    Decreasing
                             Hungarian Partridge            ------     ------                                    Low       Stable        Expanding southward

                             FURBEARERS

                             Muskrat                        Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Mink                           Low        Stable                                    Law       Decreasing
                             Beaver                         Medium     Stable                                    Medium    increasing
                             Weasel                         Low        Stable                                    Low       Decreasing
                             Raccoon                        Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Increasing
                             Skunk                          Low        Stable                                    Low       Stable
                             Opossum                        Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Badger                         Low        Decreasing                                Low       Decreasing

                             NON-GAME

                             Woodchuck                      Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Decreasing
                             Red Fox                        Medium     Decreasing                                Low       Stable
                             Gray Fox                       Medium     Increasing                                Low       Decreasing
                             Crow                           Low        Stable                                    Law       Decreasing
                             Red Squirrel                   Low        Stable                                                            May be extinct
                             Coyote                         Low        Stable                                    Low       Stable
                             Raptors                        Medium     Decreasing                                Low       Decreasing

                             RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UNDETERMINED(S)l
                             Bald Eagle (E)2                Low        Decreasing                                Low       Decreasing    No breeders, some
                                                                                                                                         migration
                             American Osprey (S)            Low        Stable         Occasional                 Low       Decreasing    No breeders, some
                                                                                                                                         migration
                             No.Gr. Prairie Chicken (R)                               Last record--1970          ------    ------
                             Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)        Low        Stable                                                            Very rare in State
                             Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)    ------     ------                                    Low       Decreasing    No breeders, some
                                                                                                                                         migration

                             UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3
                             Sandhill Crane                 Low        Stable                                    ------    ------
                             Golden Eagle                   Law        Decreasing                                Low                     Some migration

                             Note: Planning Subarea 2.2 in  Illinois is unique due to boggy cattail marshes, especially in Lake County. This is the
                                  only breeding area for the following Illinois birds: yellow-headed blackbird, Wilson's phalarope, Forster's tern,
                                  common tern, Wilson's snipe, Leconte's sparrow, mourning warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, veery, Brewer's
                                  blackbird, piping plover; also the only breeding records for canvasback, ruddy duck, pintail, black duck and
                                  shoveler are from this area.
                             1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                             Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                             2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                             endangered status being the important consideration.
                             3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                    14 Appendix 17

                    TABLE 17-5 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan

                                                              Planning Subarea 2.3--Indiana                      Planning Subarea 2.3--Michigan
                       Class and Species                Density   Trend                Notes               Density   Trend              Notes

                       BIG GAME

                        White-tailed Deer               Medium    Increasing                               Medium    Increasing
                        Turkey                          ------    ------                                   Law       Stable

                       WATERFOWL

                        Ducks                           Medium    Decreasing                               Medium    Increasing
                        Geese                           Law       Decreasing                               High      Stable

                       SMALL GAME

                        Cottontail Rabbit               Law       Increasing     Up 1969-70                High      Stable
                        Ring-necked Pheasant            Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Ruffed Grouse                   Low       Stable         Some sightings in         Low       Stable
                                                                                  St. Joseph County
                        Gray Squirrel                   Low       Stable                                   Low       Increasing
                        Fox Squirrel                    Medium    Stable                                   High      Stable
                        Woodcock                        Low       Stable                                   Law       Stable
                        Mourning Dove                   Low       Stable                                   Medium    Increasing
                        Bobwhite Quail                  Low       Increasing     Up 1969-70                Medium    Stable
                        Hungarian Partridge             Low       Decreasing                               Low       Stable

                       FURBEARERS

                        Muskrat                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Mink                            Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Beaver                          Low       Stable                                   Law       Decreasing
                        Weasel                          Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Raccoon                         Medium    Stable                                   High      Stable
                        Skunk                           Law       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Opossum                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Badger                          ------    ------                                   Low       Stable

                       NON-GAME

                        Woodchuck                       Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Red Fox                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Gray Fox                        Medium    Increasing                               Low       Stable
                        Crow                            Low       Stable                                   Medium    Increasing
                        Red Squirrel                    Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                        Coyote                          Low       Stable                                   Low       Stable
                        Raptors                         Low       Decreasing                               Medium    Stable

                       RARE(R) FNDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)   I
                        Bald Eagle (E) 2                LOW       Decreasing                               ------    ------
                        American Osprey (S)             Low                      Occasional                          ------
                        E. Pigeon Hawk (S)              Low       Stable         Occasional                                        Rare transient
                        Indiana Bat (E)                                          Unknown                   ------    ------

                       UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3

                        Golden Eagle                    Low       Decreasing                                                       Rare transient
                        Sandhill Crane                  ------    ------                                   Medium    Stable

                       1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of  the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                       Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                       2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                       endangered status being the important consideration.
                       3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                             Present Status of Wildlife 15

                      TABLE 17-6 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 1.2 and 2.1, Michigan
                                                                Planning Subarea 1.2--Michigan                      Planning Subarea 2.1--Michigan
                           Class and Species              Density   Trend              Notes                 Density    Trend             Notes

                           BIG GAME

                           White-tailed Deer              Medium    Decreasing                               Medium     Decreasing
                           Black Bear                     Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Moose                          Low       Stable
                           Turkey                         ------    ------                                   Low        Increasing

                           WATERFOWL
                           Ducks                          Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Increasing
                           Geese                          Medium    Increasing                               Low        Increasing

                           SMALL GAME

                           Cottontail Rabbit              Low       Stable                                   LOW        Decreasing
                           Ruffed Grouse                  High      Increasing                               Medium     Increasing
                           Gray Squirrel                  Low       Stable                                   LOW        Stable
                           Fox Squirrel                   Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Sharp-tailed Grouse            Low       Decreasing                               LOW        Decreasing
                           Woodcock                       High      Increasing                               High       Increasing
                           Mourning Dove                  Low       Stable                                   LOW        Stable
                           Snowshoe Hare                  Medium    Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Ring-necked Pheasant                                                              LOW        Stable

                           FURBEARERS

                           Muskrat                        Low       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Mink                           LOW       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Beaver                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Weasel                         Low       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Raccoon                        Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Otter                          Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           Skunk                          Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Badger                         ------    ------                                   Low        Stable

                           NON-GAME

                           Woodchuck                      Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Porcupine                      High      Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Bobcat                         Medium    Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           Crow                           Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Raven                          Law       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Red Squirrel                   Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Coyote                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Red Fox                        ------    ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Raptors                        Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UMDETERMINED(S)l
                           Eastern Timber Wolf (E)        Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Pine Martin (S)                Law       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Fisher (S)                                              Recent reintroduction
                           Canada Lynx (S)                Low       Stable
                           Bald Eagle (E)2                Law       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           American Osprey  (S)           Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)                             Rare transient                                    Rare migrant
                           Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)        ------    ------                                                           Rare transient
                           UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3

                           Sandhill Crane                 Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Spruce Grouse                  Medium    Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Golden Eagle                                            Rare transient                                    Rare transient
                           IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                           Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                           2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                           endangered status being the important consideration.
                           3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                      16 Appendix 17

                      TABLE 17-7 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.4 and 3.1, Michigan
                                                                Planning Subarea 2.4--Michigan                     Planning Subarea 3.1--Michigan
                          Class and Species               Density   Trend               Notes                Density    Trend             Notes

                          BIG GAME

                          White-tailed Deer               Medium    Decreasing                               Medium     Decreasing
                          Black Bear                      Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                          Moose                           Low       Increasing                               ------     ------    I
                          Turkey                          Low       Increasing                               Varied     Increasing   Low/medium density
                          Elk                             ------    ------                                   Low        Varied       Stable/increase
                                                                                                                                      trend

                          WATERFOWL

                          Ducks                           Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Geese                           Medium    Increasing                               Low        Stable

                          SMALL GAME

                          Cottontail Rabbit               High      Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Ring-necked Pheasant            Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable       Occasionally seen
                          Ruffed Grouse                   High      Increasing                               High       Stable
                          Gray Squirrel                   Medium    Increasing                               Medium     Increasing
                          Fox Squirrel                    Medium    Increasing                               Medium     Stable
                          Snowshoe Hare                   Low       Decreasing                               Varied     Stable       Low/medium density
                          Woodcock                        High      Increasing                               High       Increasing
                          Mourning Dove                   Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Increasing
                          Bobwhite Quail                  Low       Stable                                   ------     ------
                          Sharp-tailed Grouse             Low       Decreasing     Upper Peninsula           ------     ------

                          FURBEARERS

                          Muskrat                         Medium    Decreasing                               Medium     Stable
                          Mink                            Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Beaver                          High      Stable                                   High       Increasing
                          Weasel                          Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Decreasing
                          Raccoon                         High      Increasing                               Medium     Increasing
                          Otter                           Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                          Skunk                           High      Increasing                               High       Increasing
                          Opossum                         Medium    Increasing                               Low        Increasing
                          Badger                          Law       Stable                                   Low        Stable

                          NON-GAME

                          Woodchuck                       Medium    Stable                                   High       Stable
                          Porcupine                       Low       Decreasing                               Medium     Decreasing
                          Red Fox                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Bobcat                          Low       Decreasing                               Law        Decreasing
                          Crow                            High      Increasing                               High       Stable
                          Raven                           Low       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Red Squirrel                    Medium    Increasing                               Medium     Stable
                          Coyote                          Low       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          Raptors                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                          RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS  UNDETERMINED(S)  I
                          Bald Eagle (E)2                 Low       Decreasing                               Low        Stable
                          American Osprey (S)             Low       Decreasing                               Low        Stable
                          No. Gr. Prairie Chicken (R)     Law       Decreasing     Missaukee and             Low        Decreasing
                                                                                    Osceola Counties
                          Kirtlands Warbler (E)           Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing   Iosco County
                          Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)                                  Rare transient                                    Rare transient
                          Canada Lynx (S)                 Low       Increasing     Upper Peninsula           ------     ------
                          UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3
                          Sandhill Crane                  Low       Increasing                               Low        Stable
                          Spruce Grouse                   Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                          Golden Eagle                                             Rare transient                                    Rare transient
                          Sharp-tailed Grouse             Low       Decreasing     Lower Peninsula           Low        Decreasing
                          1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                          Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                          2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are li   -sted as bald eagle, the
                          endangered status being the important consideration.
                          3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                              Present Status of Wildlife 17

                      TABLE 17-8 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 3.2 and 4.1, Michigan
                                                                 Planning Subarea 3.2--Michigan                      Planning Subarea 4.1--Michigan

                           Class and Species               Density   Trend              Notes                 Density   Trend              Notes

                           BIG GAME

                           White-tailed Deer               Medium    Stable                                   Low       Increasing
                           Black Bear                      Law       Decreasing                               ------    ------
                           Turkey                          Low       Stable                                   ------    ------

                           WATERFOWL

                           Ducks                           High      Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Geese                           High      Stable                                   Medium    Increasing

                           SMALL GAME

                           Cottontail Rabbit               Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Ring-necked Pheasant            Medium    Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Ruffed Grouse                   Medium    Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Gray Squirrel                   Low       Stable                                   Low       Decreasing
                           Fox Squirrel                    Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Woodcock                        Medium    Increasing                               Low       Stable
                           Mourning Dove                   High      Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Snowshoe  Hare                  Low       Stable                                   ------    ------
                           Bobwhite  Quail                 ------    ------                                   Low       Stable

                           FURBEARERS

                           Muskrat                         High      Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Mink                            High      Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Beaver                          Medium    Stable                                   Low       Decreasing
                           Weasel                          Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Raccoon                         High      Stable                                   Medium    increasing
                           Skunk                           Medium    Stable                                   High      Increasing
                           Opossum                         Medium    Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Badger                          Low       Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Otter                           Low       Stable                                   ------    ------

                           NON-GAME

                           Woodchuck                       Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Red Fox                         High      Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Gray Fox                                                 Occasional                Low       Stable
                           Crow                            Medium    Stable                                   High      Stable
                           Red Squirrel                    Medium    Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Coyote                          Low       Stable                                   Low       Stable
                           Raptors                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Porcupine                       Low       Stable                                   ------    ------
                           Bobcat                          Low       Stable                                   ------    ------

                           RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)    1
                           Bald Eagle (E) 2                Low       Stable                                   Law       Decreasing
                           American Osprey (S)             Low       Decreasing                               Low       Decreasing
                           Kirtlands Warbler (E)           Low       Decreasing                               ------    ------
                           Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)                                  Rare transient            ------    ------

                           13NIJSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3

                           Sandhill Crane                  Low       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                           Golden Eagle                                             Rare transient                                    Rare transient

                           IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                           Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                           2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                           endangered status being the important consideration.
                           3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                    ,18 Appendix 17

                     TABLE 17-9 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio
                                                                          PlannIng Subarea 4.2--Ohio
                        Class and Species                      Density          Trend                 Notes

                        BIG GAME

                         White-tailed Deer                     Low              Increasing      One-half to two per section

                        WATERFOWL

                         Ducks                                 Medium           Stable
                         Geese                                 Medium           Increasing

                        SMALL GAME

                         Cottontail Rabbit                     Low              Decreasing      99 to 144 per section
                         Ring-necked Pheasant                  Low              Decreasing      7 to 124 per section
                         Fox Squirrel                          Medium           Decreasing      2 to 3 per wooded acre
                         Woodcock                              Low              Stable
                         Mourning Dove                         High             Stable
                         Bobwhite Quail                        Low              Decreasing      45 to 98 per section
                         Hungarian Partridge                   Low              Decreasing      Local, 10 per section

                        FURBEARERS
                         Muskrat                               High             Decreasing      State consistently second in total U.S. catch.
                         Mink                                  Medium           Decreasing
                         Beaver                                Law              Stable
                         Weasel                                Low              Decreasing
                         Raccoon                               High             Stable
                         Skunk                                 Medium           Stable
                         Badger                                Low              Stable
                         Opossum                               Medium           Stable

                        NON-GAME

                         Woodchuck                             Medium           Stable
                         Red Fox                               Medium           Stable
                         Gray Fox                              Low              Increasing
                         Crow                                  Medium           Decreasing
                         Red Squirrel                          Medium           Decreasing
                         Coyote                                                                 Accidental
                         Raptors                               Low              Decreasing
                        RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)   2
                         Bald Eagle (E) 3                      Low              Decreasing      Northern Bald Eagle--eight nesting pairs, but
                                                                                                no reproduction in 1971. Southern Bald Eagle--
                                                                                                very rare (result of summer movement of
                                                                                                juveniles into planning subarea).
                         American Osprey (S)                   Low              Decreasing      Decrease during migration. Regular nesting
                                                                                                before 1900 is presumed.
                         Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)           Low              Decreasing      Decrease from previous annual flights in
                                                                                                recent years in Western Lake Erie Counties.
                                                                                                Perhaps former nester.
                         Kirtland's Warbler (E)                Low              Decreasing      Irregular as a migrant.
                         Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)               Low              Decreasing      Decrease from previous spring and fall
                                                                                                flights in recent years in Western Lake Erie
                                                                                                Counties. Perhaps former nester.
                         Indiana Bat (E)                       Low              Stable
                        UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS4
                         Sandhill Crane                                                         Accidental migrant. Last nest reported
                                                                                                in 1926. No longer.recorded.
                         Golden Eagle                                                           Accidental migrant. Not recorded annually.
                         Lake Erie Water Snake                 Low              Stable          Lake Erie islands only.
                         Eastern Plains Garter Snake           Low              Decreasing      Range only in part of Wyandot County -in and
                                                                                                near Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area.

                        IPopulation densities shown represent the  range in averages for drainages within the PSA.
                        2Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of  the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968
                        Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                        3For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle,
                        the endangered status being the important consideration.
                        4AnimaI species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                                      Present Status of Wildlife 19

                        TABLE 17-10 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 4.2, Indiana, and 4.3, Ohio
                                                                    Planning Subarea 4.2--Indiana                       Planning Subarea 4.3--Ohio
                             Class and Species               Density    Trend               Notes                 Density   Trend              Notes
                             BIG GAME

                             White-tailed Deer               Low        Increasing                                Medium    Stable        Two to three per
                                                                                                                                          section

                             WATERFOWL

                             Ducks                           Low        Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Geese                           Low        Stable                                    Medium    Increasing
                             SMALL GAME

                             Cottontail Rabbit               Low        Increasing    Up 1969-70                  Medium    Stable        23 to 144 per section
                             Ring-necked Pheasant            Low        Stable                                    Low       Decreasing    7 to 69 per section
                             Fox Squirrel                    Low        Decreasing                                High      Stable        2 to 3 per wooded acre
                                                                                                                                          in western half, one-
                                                                                                                                          half to one in eastern
                             Woodcock                        Low        Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Mourning Dove                   Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Bobwhite Quail                  Low        Increasing    Up 1969-70                  Law       Stable        7 to 25 per section
                             Hungarian Partridge             Low        Stable                                    ------    ------
                             Ruffed Grouse                   ------     ------                                    High      Stable
                             FURBEARERS

                             Muskrat                         Low        Increasing                                Medium    Stable
                             Mink                            Low        Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Beaver                          Low        Decreasing                                Medium    Stable
                             Weasel                          Low        Stable                                    Low       Stable
                             Raccoon                         Medium     Stable                                    High      Stable
                             Skunk                           Low        Increasing                                Medium    Stable
                             Opossum                         Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Badger                          Low        Increasing                                Low       Stable
                             NON-GAME

                             Woodchuck                       Low        Increasing                                Medium    Stable
                             Red Fox                         Medium     Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Gray Fox                        Low        Stable                                    Low       Increasing
                             Crow                            Low        Stable                                    Medium    Stable
                             Red Squirrel                    I-         Increasing                                Medium    Stable
                             Coyote                          Low        Increasing                                ------    ------
                             Raptors                         Low        Stable                                    Medium    Decreasing
                             RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UNDETERMINED(S) 2
                             Bald Eagle (E) 3                Low        Decreasing                                Low       Decreasing    No.Bald Eagle, rare
                                                                                                                                          migrant. Former
                                                                                                                                          nester. So. Bald
                                                                                                                                          Eagle, rare (result
                                                                                                                                          summer movement of
                                                                                                                                          juveniles into area)
                             American Osprey (S)             ------     ------                                    Low       Decreasing    Decrease during
                                                                                                                                          migration. Regular
                                                                                                                                          nesting before 1900
                                                                                                                                          presumed.
                             Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)         Law        Stable                                                            Rare--migrant only
                             Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)     ------     ------                                    Low       Decreasing    Rare--migrant only
                             UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS4
                             Sandhill Crane                  Low        Increasing                                ------    ------
                             Golden Eagle                    Low        Decreasing                                                        Accidental migrant
                             River Otter                     ------     ------                                    Low       Decreasing    Recorded in Grand
                                                                                                                                          River watershed and
                                                                                                                                          vicinity
                             Eastern Smooth Green Snake      ------     ------                                    Low       Stable
                             Boreal Redback Vole             ------     ------                                    Low       Decreasing    Formerly in Pyma-
                                                                                                                                          tuning Region--may
                                                                                                                                          be extirpated.
                             1Population densities shown represent the range in averages for drainages within the PSA.
                             2Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States    U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                             Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                             3For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                             endangered status being the important consideration.
                             4Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                     20 Appendix 17

                     TABLE 17-11 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.4, New York and Pennsylvania
                                                                Planning Subarea 4.4--New York                       Planning Subarea 4.4--Pennsylvania
                        Class and Species                 Density   Trend                Notes                Density    Trend               Notes

                        BIG GAME

                        White-tailed Deer                 Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Stable
                        Black Bear                        Low       Stable                                    ------     ------
                        Turkey                            Low       Increasing                                Low        Stable        Mostly stocked

                        WATERFOWL

                        Ducks                             Medium    Stable                                    Varied     Decreasing    High--Lake Erie
                                                                                                                                       Law--inland
                        Geese                             Low       Stable                                    Low        Stable

                        SMALL GAME
                        Cottontail Rabbit                 Medium    Stable         Lower elevations           Medium     Decreasing
                        Ring-necked Pheasant              Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Stable        Mostly stocked
                        Ruffed Grouse                     Low       Stable                                    High       Increasing
                        Gray Squirrel                     Medium    Stable                                    Low        Stable
                        Fox Squirrel                      Low       Stable                                    Medium     Stable
                        Snowshoe Hare                     Law       Stable                                    ------     ------
                        Woodcock                          Low       Stable                                    High       Increasing
                        Sharp-tailed Grouse               ------    ------                                    Low        Decreasing    Introduced
                        Mourning Dove                     Low       Stable                                    Medium     Increasing
                        Bobwhite Quail                    ------    ------                                    Low        Decreasing

                        FURBEARERS

                        Muskrat                           Medium    Stable                                    High       Stable
                        Mink                              Low       Stable                                    Low        Stable
                        Beaver                            Low       Decreasing                                High       Increasing
                        Weasel                            Low       Stable                                    Low        Stable
                        Raccoon                           Medium    Increasing                                Medium     Stable
                        Skunk                             Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Stable
                        Opossum                           Medium    Increasing                                Medium     Increasing
                        Badger                                                     Occasional transient       ------     ------

                        NON-GAME

                        Woodchuck                         Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Stable
                        Porcupine                         Low                      Few found in southern      ------     ------
                                                                                   Chautauqua & Cattar-
                                                                                   augus Counties
                        Red Fox                           Low       Stable                                    Medium     Increasing
                        Gray Fox                          Low       Stable                                    Low        Stable
                        Crow                              Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Decreasing
                        Red Squirrel                      Medium    Stable                                    Low        Stable
                        Raptors                           Medium    Stable                                    Medium     Stable

                        RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS    UNDETERMINED(S)
                        Indiana Bat (E)                   Low       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)           Low       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Bald Eagle (E)2                   Low       Unknown        Frequent transients.       Low        Decreasing
                                                                                   No known breeding.
                        American Osprey (S)               Low       Unknown        Frequent transierits.      Low        Decreasing    Occasional
                                                                                   No known breeding.
                        UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3

                        Common Loon                                                A few transients           ------     ------
                        Great Blue Heron                  Law       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Least Bittern                     Low       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Lake Erie Water Snake             Low       Unknown                                   ------
                        Timber Rattlesnake                Law       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Spotted Turtle                    Law       Unknown                                   ------     ------
                        Golden Eagle                                               A few transients           ------     ------
                        Eastern Bluebird                  Low       Unknown                                   -----      ------
                        Goshawk                           Low       Decreasing                                ------     ------
                        IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of   the United  States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                        Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                        2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                        endangered status being the important consideration.
                        3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                                   Present Status of Wildlife 21

                        TABLE 17-12 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 5.1 and 5.2, New York
                                                                   Planning Subarea 5.1--New York                     Planning Subarea 5.2--New York
                             Class and Species              Density    Trend               Notes                Density   Trend             Notes

                             BIG GAME
                             White-tailed Deer              Medium     Stable        Only southern part of      Medium    Stable
                                                                                     watershed. Low density
                                                                                     in northern part
                             Black Bear                     Low        Stable        Only southern part of      Low       Stable        Refers to actual
                                                                                     watershed                                          watershed
                             Turkey                         Low        Increasing    Only southern part of      Low       Increasing
                                                                                     watershed

                             WATERFOWL
                             Ducks                          Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Geese                          High       Increasing                               High      Increasing
                             SMALL GAME
                             Cottontail Rabbit              Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Ring-necked Pheasant           High       Stable        Only northern part of      Medium    Stable
                                                                                     watershed
                             Ruffed Grouse                  Low        Stable        Only southern part of      Medium    Stable
                                                                                     watershed
                             Gray Squirrel                  Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Fox Squirrel                   Low        Stable                                   ------    ------
                             Snowshoe Hare                  Low        Stable        Only certain areas in      Medium    Stable
                                                                                     southern part of
                                                                                     watershed
                             Woodcock                       Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Mourning Dove                  Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Hungarian Partridge            ------     ------                                   Low       Stable

                             FURBEARERS
                             Muskrat                        High       Stable                                   High      Stable
                             Mink                           Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Beaver                         Low        Decreasing                               Medium    Stable
                             Weasel                         Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Raccoon                        Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Skunk                          Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Opossum                        Medium     Increasing                               Medium    Increasing
                             Otter                          ------     ------                                   Low       Stable

                             NON-GAME
                             Woodchuck                      High       Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Porcupine                      Low        Stable        Few in southern part       Low       Stable
                             Coyote                         ------     ------                                   Low       Stable
                             Red Fox                        Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Gray Fox                       Low        Stable                                   Low       Stable
                             Crow                           Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Red Squirrel                   Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             Bobcat                         ------     ------                                   Low       Stable
                             Raptors                        Medium     Stable                                   Medium    Stable
                             RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UNDETERMINED(S)l
                             Indiana Bat (E)                Low        Unknown                                  Low       Unknown
                             Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S)        Low                      Some seen in               Low       Unknown
                             Bald Eagle (E) 2               Low        Decreasing    migration                                          A few transients
                             Bog Turtle (R)                 Low        Decreasing                               Low       Decreasing
                             American Osprey  (S)           ------     ------                                   Low       Decreasing    Occasional resident
                             Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E)    ------     ------                                                           A few transients
                             Fisher (S)                     ------     ------                                   Low       Stable        Doing well under
                                                                                                                                        managed trapping
                             Pine Marten (S)                ------     ------                                   Low       Stable
                             UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3
                             Golden Eagle                                            Transients only                                    A few transients
                             Common Loon                                             A few transients           Low       Decreasing
                             Great Blue Heron               Low        Unknown                                  Low       Unknown
                             Least Bittern                  Low        Unknown                                  Low       Unknown
                             Goshawk                        Low        Decreasing                               Low       Decreasing
                             Eastern Bluebird               Low        Unknown                                  Low       Unknown
                             Massasauga Rattlesnake         Low        Unknown                                  Low       Unknown
                             Spotted Turtle                 Low        Unknown                                  Law       Unknown
                             Timber Rattlesnake             Low        Unknown                                  ------    ------
                             Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker   ------     ------                                   Low       Unknown
                             Lincoln's Sparrow              ------     ------                                   Low       Unknown
                             Bicknell's Thrush              ------     ------                                   Low       Unknown

                             IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                             Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                             2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                             endangered status being the important consideration.
                             3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                     22 Appendix 17

                     TABLE 17-13 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Black River Valley
                     and Central Tug Hill

                                                                                         Planning Subarea 5.3--New York
                                                                    Black River Valley                                    Central Tug Hill
                       Class and Species                Density    Trend               Notes                Density    Trend              Notes

                       BIG GAME

                         White-tailed Deer              Low        Stable         Low density due to        Medium     Increasing   No wintering areas,
                                                                                  illegal activities,                               migrate
                                                                                  dogs and land use
                         Black Bear                                                                         Low        Stable

                       WATERFOWL

                         Ducks                          Medium     Stable         Enhancement potential     Medium     Stable
                         Geese                          High       stable         Fall feeding area         Medium     Stable

                       SMALL GAME

                         Cottontail Rabbit              Medium     Stable                                   ------     ------
                         Ring-necked Pheasant           LOW        Stable                                   ------     ------
                         Ruffed Grouse                  LOW        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Snowshoe Hare                  Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                         Gray Squirrel                  Medium     stable                                   ------     ------
                         Woodcock                       Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Mourning Dove                  Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable

                       FURBEARE16

                         Muskrat                        High       Stable                                   Medium'    Stable
                         Mink                           High       Stable                                   High       Stable
                         Beaver                         Law        Stable                                   High       Stable
                         Weasel                         High       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Raccoon                        Medium     Stable                                   Law        Stable
                         Otter                          Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Skunk                          Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Opossum                        Low        Stable                                   ------     ------

                       NON-GAME

                         Woodchuck                      Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                         Porcupine                      Law        Stable                                   High       Stable
                         Red Fox                        Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Gray Fox                       Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Bobcat                         Low        Decreasing     May be endangered         Medium     Decreasing   May be endangered
                                                                                                                                    and need protection
                         Crow                           Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable  -
                         Red Squirrel                   Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                         Coyote                         Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                         Raptors                        Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable

                       RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS    UNDETERMINED(S)
                         Bald Eagle (E)2                Low                       Occasional transient      ------     ------
                         American Osprey (S)            Low        Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                         Fisher (S)                     Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable
                         Eastern Pigeon Hawk  (S)       Low        Unknown                                  ------     ------

                       UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3

                         Common Loon                    Low        Decreasing                               ------     ------
                         Great Blue Heron               Low        Unknown                                  ------
                         Least Bittern                  Low        Unknown                                  ------     ------
                         Eastern Bluebird               Low        Unknown                                  ------     ------
                       lRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of   the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                       Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                       2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                       endangered status being the important consideration.
                       3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                                   Present Status of Wildlife 23

                       TABLE 17-14 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Tug Hill Transition
                       and Western Adirondacks

                                                                                           Planning Subarea 5.3--New York
                                                                      Tug Hill Transition                                 Western Adirondacks
                           Class and Species               Density    Trend              Notes                 Density    Trend             Notes

                           BIG GAME

                           White-tailed Deer               Medium     Increasing    Good deer yards,           High       Stable
                                                                                    illegal activity  and
                                                                                    dogs important
                           Black Bear                      Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable

                           WATERFOWL

                           Ducks                           Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Geese                           Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable

                           SMALL GAME

                           Cottontail Rabbit               Low        Stable                                   ------     ------
                           Ruffed Grouse                   High       Increasing    Land abandonment           Medium     Stable
                           Gray Squirrel                   Low        Unknown                                  ------     ------
                           Snowshoe Hare                   High       Increasing    Land abandonment           Medium     Stable
                           Woodcock                        High       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Mourning Dove                   Low        Stable                                   Low        Stable

                           FURBEARERS

                           Muskrat                         Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Mink                            Medium     Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Beaver                          Low        Decreasing                               High       Decreasing
                           Weasel                          Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Raccoon                         Medium     Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Otter                           Low        Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Skunk                           Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Opossum                         Low        Stable                                   ------     ------

                           NON-GAME

                           Woodchuck                       Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Porcupine                       Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Red Fox                         Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Gray Fox                        Low        Stable                                   ------     ------
                           Bobcat                          Lw         Stable                                   I-         Stable       May be endangered
                           Red Squirrel                    High       Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Coyote                          Low        Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Grow                            Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Raven                           ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Raptors                         Medium     Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS    UNDETERMINED(S)   1
                           Fisher  (S)    2                Low        Stable                                   High       Increasing
                           Bald Eagle (E)                  Low        Decreasing                               Low                     Occasional transient
                           American Osprey   (S)           Low        Increasing                               Law        Decreasing
                           Eastern Pigeon Hawk    (S)      Low        Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Eastern Timber Wolf    (E)      ------     ------                                   Low        Stable       Very rare
                           Pine Marten (S)                 ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Canada Lynx (S)                 ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE,ANIMALS3

                           Common Loon                     Low        Unknown                                  Low        Decreasing
                           Great Blue Heron                Low        Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Least Bittern                   Low        Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Eastern Bluebird                Low        Unknown                                  ------     ------
                           Lincoln's Sparrow               Low        Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Bicknell's Thrush               ------     ------                                   Low        Unknown
                           Spruce Grouse                   ------     ------                                   Law        Stable
                           Golden Eagle                    ------     ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Goshawk                         ------     ------                                   Law        Decreasing
                           Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker    ------     ------                                   Low        Unknown
                           IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                           Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                           2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                           endangered status being the important consideration.
                           3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                      24 Appendix 17

                      TABLE 17-15 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Adirondack Transi-
                      tion and Central Adirondacks

                                                                                               Planning Subarea 5.3--New York
                                                                       Adirondack Transition                              Central Adirondacks

                          Class and Species                Density   Trend               Notes                Density    Trend             Notes

                          BIG GAME

                           White-tailed Deer               Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable       Winters and range
                                                                                                                                      conditions control
                                                                                                                                      numbers
                           Black Bear                      Low       Stable                                   High       Stable

                          WATERFOWL

                           Ducks                           Low       Stable                                   Law        Stable
                           Geese                           Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable

                          SMALL GAME

                           Cottontail Rabbit               Low       Stable                                   ------     ------
                           Ruffed Grouse                   High      Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Gray Squirrel                   Low       Stable                                   ------     ------
                           Snowshoe Hare                   High      Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Woodcock                        High      Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Mourning Dove                   Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Hungarian Partridge             Low       Stable                                   ------     ------

                          FURBEARERS

                           Muskrat                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Mink                            High      Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Beaver                          Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Weasel                          Medium    Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Raccoon                         Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Otter                           Medium    Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Skunk                           Medium    Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Opossum                         Low       Stable                                   ------     ------

                          NON-GAME

                           Woodchuck                       Law       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Porcupine                       High      Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Red Fox                         Medium    Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Gray Fox                        Low       Stable                                   ------     ------
                           Bobcat                          Low       Stable         May be endangered         Medium     Stable
                           Red Squirrel                    High      Stable                                   High       Stable
                           Coyote                          Low       Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Crow                            Medium    Stable                                   Medium     Stable
                           Raven                           -------   ------                                   Low        Stable
                           Raptors                         Medium    Stable                                   Low        Stable
                          RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS   UNDETERMINED(S)  1
                           Fisher (S)     2                Medium    Decreasing                               High       Increasing
                           Bald Eagle (E)                  Law                      occasional transient      Low                     Occasional transient
                           American osprey  (S)            Medium    Decreasing                               Law        Decreasing
                          .Eastern Pigeon Hawk  (S)        Low       Unknown                                  Law        Unknown
                           Pine Marten (S)                 ------                                             Low        Stable
                           Canada Lynx (S)                 ------    ------                                   Low        Stable
                          UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3
                           Spruce Grouse                   Low       Stable                                   Low        Stable
                           Golden Eagle                    Low       Decreasing                               Law        Stable
                           Goshawk                         Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           Common Loon                     Low       Decreasing                               Low        Decreasing
                           Great Blue Heron                Low       Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Least Bittern                   Low       Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker    Low       Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Eastern Bluebird                Low       Unknown                                             ------
                           Lincoln's Sparrow               Low       Unknown                                  Low        Unknown
                           Bicknell's Thrush               Law       Unknown                                  Low        Unknown

                          IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of  the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                          Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                          2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                          endangered status being the important consideration.
                          3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                                                                                                                   Present Status of Wildlife 25

                      TABLE 17-16 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, St. Lawrence Plain
                      and Eastern Ontario Plain

                                                                                              Planning Subarea 5.3--New York
                                                                         St    awrence                                        Eastern Ontario Plain

                          Class and Species                 Density     Trend               Notes                  Density    Trend               Notes

                          BIG GAME

                          White-tailed Deer                 Low         Stable         Illegal activity and        Low        Stable        Illegal activity
                                                                                       dogs controls numbers                                controls numbers
                          Black Bear                        Low         Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Turkey                            ------      ------                                     Low        Stable

                          WATERFOWL

                          Ducks                             High        Increasing     Enhancement potential       High       Stable
                                                                                       large
                          Geese                             Medium      Increasing     Enhancement potential       High       Stable
                                                                                       large

                          SMALL GA14E

                          Cottontail Rabbit                 Low         Stable                                     High-      Stable
                          Ring-necked Pheasant              Low         Stable                                     Law        Stable
                          Ruffed Grouse                     High        Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Gray Squirrel                     Low         Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Snowshoe Hare                     Medium      Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Woodcock                          High        Stable                                     High       Stable
                          Mourning   Dove                   Low         Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Hungarian Partridge               Medium      Stable                                     Medium     Decreasing

                          FURBEARERS

                          Muskrat                           High        Stable                                     High       Stable
                          Mink                              High        Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Beaver                            Low         Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Weasel                            Medium      Stable                                     High       Stable
                          Raccoon                           Medium      Stable                                     High       Stable
                          Otter                             Low         Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Skunk                             Medium      Stable                                     High       Stable
                          Opossum                           ------      ------                                     Low        Stable

                          NON-GAME

                          Woodchuck                         Medium      Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Porcupine                         Medium      Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Red Fox                           High        Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Gray Fox                          Low         Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Bobcat                            Law         Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Crow                              Medium      Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Red Squirrel                      Medium      Stable                                     Medium     Stable
                          Coyote                            Low         Stable                                     Low        Stable
                          Raptors                           Medium      Stable                                     High       Stable
                          RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS      UNDETERMINED(S)  I
                          Fisher (R)      2                 Low         Decreasing     Endangered                  Low        Decreasing
                          Bald Eagle (E)                    Low         Decreasing                                 Low        Decreasing
                          American Osprey    (S)            Medium      Decreasing                                 Medium     Stable
                          Eastern Pigeon Hawk     (S)       Low         Unknown                                    Low        Unknown
                          Arctic Peregrine Falcon     (E)   Low                        A few transients            ------     ------
                          UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3
                          Common Loon                       Low         Decreasing                                 Low        Decreasing
                          Great Blue Heron                  Low         Unknown                                    Low        Unknown
                          Least Bittern                     Low         Unknown                                    Low        Unknown
                          Eastern Bluebird                  Low         Unknown                                    Low        Unknown
                          Lincoln's Sparrow                 Law         Unknown                                    Low        Unknown
                          Goshawk                           Low         Decreasing                                 ------     ------
                          IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of     the United  States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition.
                          Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species.
                          2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the
                          endangered status being the important consideration.
                          3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis.

                         26 Appendix 17

                         2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Trends                                                TABLE 17-17 Total Acres and Percent of
                                                                                                        Farm and Forest Game Habitat by Planning
                            Subsection 2.1 of this appendix considered                                  Subarea in 19601
                         the relationship of wildlife populations and                                                                          Farm-    % of      Forest % of
                         trends to the habitat. Subsection 2.2 is divided                               Planning      Total       Total        land     Total     land   Total
                         into two parts: the first analyzes wildlife                                    Subarea       Land        Habitat      Habitat  Land  Habitat    Land
                                                                                                         1.1          9 473.5     9 327.8      816.5    8     8 511.3       90
                         habitat base, the actual amounts of land con-                                   1.2          6:411.8     6:178.0      346.2    5     5:831.8       91
                         sidered capable of supporting wildlife, and the                                 2.1          10,010.7    9,236.3      4,224.3  42    5,012.0       50
                         amounts of habitat available for use by both                                    2.2          .5,212.7    3,984.2      3,546.2  68        438.0     8
                                                                                                         2.3          8 944.4     7,693.3      6,466.8  72    1,226.5       14
                         the hunter (consumptive user), and the non-                                     2.4          8:094.2     7,607.6      1,701.7  21    5,905.9       73
                         hunter (non-consumptive user); the second                                       3.1          4,017.8     3,785.5      762.2    19    3,023.3       75
                         considers the wetlands habitat of the Great                                     3.2          4,424.1     3,904.7      2,848.9  64    1,055.8       24
                                                                                                         4.1          3,980.4     2,955.8      2,502.0  63        453.8     11
                         Lakes Region.                                                                   4.2          6,319.4     5,777.5      5,204.9  82        .572.6    9
                                                                                                         4.3          2,308.4     1,666.8      1,149.6  50        517.2     22
                                                                                                         4.4          3,069.9     2,454.7      1,474.1  48        980.6     32
                                                                                                         5.1          2 458.7     2 104.8      1 525.7  62        579.1     24
                         2.2.1 The Wildlife Habitat Base                                                 5.2          5:427.4     4:970.7      2:909.8  54    2,080.9       38
                                                                                                         5.3          3,385.6     3,171.6      1,160.3  34    2,011.3       59
                            Tables 17-17 and 17-18 provide basic land                                   1Acres  shown in thousands
                         resources data by planning subarea and State.
                         Table 17-21 indicates the acres of cropland,
                         pasture land, forest land, and other land for
                         each target year and the estimated percent
                         available for hunting. Included in the totals
                         are public lands and wetlands, which are dis-
                         cussed separately but cannot be disaggre-
                         gated from the totals because of the way the
                         data were collected.                                                           TABLE17-18 Acres of Farm and Forest Game
                            These data are derived from the Conser-                                     Habitat by State and Planning Subarea in 1960
                                                                                                                         Planning
                         vation Needs Inventory, U.S. Department of                                     State            Subarea                   Farm               Forest
                         Agriculture, using percentages based on State
                         fish and game personnel's knowledge of the                                     Minnesota          1.1                 587,400            6,037,500
                         areas. The percentages are judgments based                                     Wisconsin          1.1                 229,100            2,473,800
                         on a number of important considerations, such                                                     2.1                 4,o44,500          3,370,500
                         as the extent of posting, farmer attitudes,                                                       2.2                 1,22,                  151,900
                         physical access, and so on.                                                                              TOTAL        5 50 500           TPOO3,200
                           The successive target years indicate trends                                                     2.2                 1,466,500              148,100
                         in the habitat base. Status and trends of                                      "'no's
                         wildlife habitat are also discussed in conjunc-                                Indiana            2.2                 846,800                131,000
                         tion with Subsection 2.5, Existing Wildlife                                                       2-3                 1,249,900              145,000
                         Problems. Table 17-19 indicates public land                                                       4.2                                        88 -_
                         open to hunting by State in the mid-1960s.                                                               TOML         2, P., 0               39iW
                         State totals of public lands closed to hunting,                                Michigan           1.2                 346,2w             5,831,800
                         but open to nonconsumptive use are listed in                                                      2.1                 179,800            1,641,500
                         Table 17-20. Figures 17-4 through 17-18 pre-                                                      2-3                 5,2i6,goo          1,081,500
                                                                                                                           2.4                 1,701,700          5,905,900
                         sent recent data on public lands open to hunt-                                                    3-1                 762,200            3,023,300
                         ing in each planning subarea. The trend in all                                                    3.2                 2,M,900            1,055,800
                                                                                                                           4.1                 2   2,000              413  "'00
                         public lands is for acreage to remain the same                                                                        1 0,700            18,99
                         or increase slightly. Due to rapidly increasing                                                          TOTAL        3,                     3,600
                         land values, particularly in the lower tier of                                 Ohio               4.2                 5P204,900              572,6oo
                         States, large increases in public holdings are                                                    4.3                 1' 14                  517,200
                         not likely. Public forest lands will probably                                                            TOrAL        6,35?,'500         1,689'"
                         increase as managing agencies block in pri-                                    Pennsylvania       4.4                 281,goo                i24,ooo
                         vate areas bounded by the forest. State game
                         divisions' acquisition plans vary widely. Most                                 Nev York           4.4                 1,192,200              856,6oo
                         increases in public hunting area will be made                                                     5-1                 1,525,700              579,100
                         by adding land to existing units, rather than                                                     5.2                 2,909,800          2,080,900
                                                                                                                           5.3                 1,160              2,011,300
                                                                                                                                               g _ z300
                         acquisition of new areas, with the possible ex-                                                          TOTAL        _rM, 000           5o527,900
                         ception of privately owned wetlands.

                                                                                    Present Status of Wildlife 27

                 TABLE 17-19 Acres of Public Lands Open to Hunting, Mid-1960s

                                    National       Public
                 State and PSA      Forest     Hunting Areas     State Forest           Others

                 Minnesota
                   1.1            2,134,000            500            544,500

                 Wisconsin
                   1.1              282,200        18,500              59,400     1,200 (State Park) Big Game
                   2.1              591,600       109,200                         6,500 (County Park) All Hunting
                                                                                  3,900 (State Park) Big Game
                   2.2              -------        38,200              14,200
                     TOTAL          873,800       165,900              98,200    11,600

                 Illinois
                   2.2              -------         6,400              ------

                 Indiana
                   2 `2             -------         7,800              ------
                   2.3              -------         9,100              ------
                   4.2              -------         -----              ------

                     TOTAL          -------        16,900              ------

                 Michigan
                   1.2            1,082,500       -------           1,073,000
                   2.1              171,400       -------             392,000
                   2.3                 4,000      113,800           ---------
                   2.4              992,300        59,000           1,392,000    95,000 (Seney N.W.R.) Big Game
                                                                                    only
                   3.1              415,600            100            880,000
                   3.2            ---------        65,400             172,200
                   4.1            ---------        29,900           ---------
                     TOTAL        2,6652800       268,200           3,9092200

                 Ohio
                   4.2              -------        14,300                2,900
                   4.3              -------        13,700                -----
                     TOTAL          -------        282000                22900

                 Pennsylvania
                   4.4              -------        11,700              ------

                 New York
                   4.4              -------         9,100              42,100    61,000 (State Park)
                   5.1              -------        16,700              44,700    16,600 (State Park)
                   5.2                13,800       53,900             129,200
                   5.3              -------        36,900              81,400     8,200 (State Park)
                     TOTAL            13,800      116,600             297,400    85,800

                  28 Appendix 17

                  TABLE 17-20 State Parks and Recreation                 Private land habitat management pro-
                  Areas, Mid-1960s                                     grams include various land treatment meas-
                                                                       ures of benefit to wildlife. Many of these meas-
                              State  and                               ures are applied by landowners and
                                 PSA              Acres                operators with technical assistance provided
                              Minnesota          26,100                by the Soil Conservation Service in the vari-
                                                                       ous Soil Conservation Districts within the Ba-
                                                                       sin.
                              Wisconsin
                                1.1               5,200                  Land   treatment measures of benefit to
                                2.1              17,100                wildlife have been established in approxi-
                                                                       mately 135 counties which represent 71 per-
                                2.2                   500              cent of the planning subareas of the Great
                              TOTAL              22,800                Lakes Basin. These measures include 29,000
                                                                       ponds, 177 miles of field borders, 2,429 miles of
                              Illinois                                 hedgerow planting, more than a million acres
                                2.2              67,231                of wildlife wetland habitat management, and
                                                                       almost a million acres of wildlife upland
                              Indiana                                  habitat management.
                                2.2               4,000                  A selected mix of land treatment measures
                                2.3               2,400                could give the land a distinctive pattern of
                                4.2               -----                cultivated crops, grass, shrubs, trees, and
                              TOTAL               6,400                water areas that make good wildlife habitat.
                                                                       Borders planted or cut along the edge of a field
                              Michigan                                 or woods provide food and cover. Hedges pro-
                                1.2              22,900                vide travel lanes, and ponds improve wildlife
                                2.1               1,000                production and furnish stopover areas for
                                2.3              23,400                migrating waterfowl.
                                2.4              21,700                  As our population increases and land use
                                3.1              17,500                becomes more intensive, planned production
                                3.2               6,400                of wildlife will become more and more impor-
                                4.1              35,300                tant in meeting the demand for wildlife uses.
                              TOTAL             128,200                Obviously, landowners and operators hold the
                                                                       key to this production through application of
                                                                       good soil and water conservation practices. At
                              Ohio                                     the same time they can improve the quality of
                                4.2               2,400                the environment and provide a viable wildlife
                                4.3               2,200                resource in the Basin.
                              TOTAL               4,600                  The trend for wetlands is downward. Tre-
                                                                       mendous losses have already occurred in wet-
                              Pennsylvania                             lands close to large cities and in high-value
                                4.4               3,000                agricultural land. Shore wetlands, having in-
                                                                       creased in value more than upland acreages,
                              New York                                 are increasingly more difficult to protect from
                                4.4              65,700                development.
                                5.1              20,500                  Unique, scenic, or natural areas are listed in
                                5.2              13,800                Tables 17-22 through 17-29. These areas of
                                5.3              10,100                unusual ecological significance are subject to
                              TOTAL              110,100               the same degradation and loss as wetlands,
                                                                       but their protection is slightly easier to ac-
                                                                       complish because they tend to be more con-
                       Open to public recreational use                 tained than other marshlands or upland
                       other than hunting or trapping.                 areas.

                                                                                                                              Present Status of Wildlife 29

                         TABLE 17-21 Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat
                                            PLANNING SUBAREA 1.1                             PLANNING SUBAREA 1.2                              PLANNING SUBAREA 2.1
                                  YEAR                       KCRES OF                                        ACRES Of-                                         ACRES OF
                                  AND                    HUNTABLE LAND                                       HUNTABLE LAND                                  HUNTABLE LAND
                         LAND USE     TOTAL ACRES            (%) TOTAL                  TOTAL ACRES               TOTAL                   TOTAL ACRES          (%) TOTAL

                         1966-67
                         Cropland         430,100            64,515  (15%)'                262,800           157,680   ( 60%)             3,316,400            663,200   (20%)
                         Pasture          99,500             49,750  (502)                 65,800            59,220    ( 90%)               356,700            142,680   (40%)
                         Forest       8,3549900          7,937,155   (95%)              5,909,600            5,909,600 (100%)             5,116,600         4,604,940    (90%)
                         Other            304,500            213,150 (70%)                 65,800            52,640    ( 80%)               757,100            378,550   (50%)
                                                         8,264,570                                           6,179,140                                      5,789,370

                         1980
                         Cropland         430,100            64,515  (15%)                 262,800           157,680   ( 60%)             3,308,400            661,680   (20%)
                         Pasture          99,500             49,750  (50%)                 65,800            59,220    ( 90%)               355,800            142,320   (40%)
                         Forest       8,354,200          7,936,490   (95%)              5,909,600            5,909,600 (100%)             5,104,200         4,593,780    (90%)
                         Other            304,500            213,150 (70%)                 65,800            52,640    ( 80%)               755,300            377,650   (50%)
                                                         8,263,905                                           6,179,140                                      5,775,430

                         2000
                         Cropland         429,700            64,455  (15%)                 262,800           1579680   ( 60%)             3,293,400            658,680   (20%)
                         Pasture          99,400             499700  (50%)                 65,800            59,220    ( 90%)               354,200            141,680   (40%)
                         Forest       8,347,200          7,929,840   (95%)              5,908,600            5,908,600 (100%)             5,081,000         4,572,900    (90%)
                         Other            304,200            212,940 (70%)                 65,800            52,640    ( 80%)               751,900            375,950   (50%)
                                                         8,256,935                                           6,178,140                                      5,749,210

                         2020
                         Cropland         429,000            64,350  (15%)                 262,700           157,620   (60%)              3,274,900            654,980   (20%)
                         Pasture          99,000             49,500  (50%)                 65,800            59,220    ( 90%)               352,200            140,880   (40%)
                         Forest       8,333,700          7,917,015   (95%)              5,905,500            5,905,500 (100%)             5,052,400         4,547,160    (90%)
                         Other            3039700            212,590 (70%)                 65,800            52,640    ( 80%)               747,700            373,850   (50%)
                                                         8,243,455                                           6,174,980                                      5,716,870

                                            PLANNING SUBAREA 2.2                              PLANNING       SUBAREA 2.3                        PLANNING SUBAREA 2.4
                                  YEAR                       ACRES OF                                        ACRES OF                                          ACRES OF
                                  AND                    HUNTABLE LAND                                       HUNTABLE LAND                                     HUNTABLE LAND
                         LAND USE     TOTAL ACRES            (%) TOTAL                  TOTAL ACRES          (%) TOTAL                    TOTAL ACRES          (%) TOTAL
                         1966-67
                         Cropland     2,843,400              7109850 (25%)              5,374,800            19074,960 (20%)              19481,500            5929600   (40%)
                         Pasture          237,400            71,220  (30%)                 459,400           413,460   (90%)                351,800            316,620   (90%)
                         Forest           340,700            272,560 (80%)              1,704,700            193639760 (80%)              5,434,300         4,890,870    (90%)
                         Other            580,100            290,050 (50%)                 598,000           239,200   (40%)                411,800            288,260   (70%)
                                                         1,344,680                                           3,091,380                                      69088,350

                         1980
                         Cropland     2,477,000              619,250 (25%)              5,305,400            1,061,080 (20%)              1,478,600            591,440   (40%)
                         Pasture          206,800            62,040  (30%)                 453,500           408,150   (90%)                351,100            315,990   (90%)
                         Forest           296,800            237,440 (80%)              1,682,700            1,346,160 (80%)              5,423,600         4,881,240    (90%)
                         Other            505,300            252,650 (50%)                 590,300           236,120   (40%)                411,000            2879700   (70%)
                                                         1,171,380                                           3,051,510                                      6,076,370

                         2000
                         Cropland     1,999,800              4999950 (25%)              5,199,900            1,039,980 (20%)              1,473,000            589,200   (40%)
                         Pasture          167,000            50,100  (30%)                 444,500           400,050   (90%)                349,800            314,820   (90%)
                         .Forest          239,700            191,760 (80%)              1,649,200            1,319,360 (80%)              5,403,200         4,862,880    (90%)
                         Other            407,900            203,950 (50%)                 578,600           231,440   (40%)                409,500            286,650   (70%)
                                                             945,760                                         2,990,830                                      6,053,550

                         2020
                         Cropland     1,641,000              410,250 (25%)              5,070,000            1,014,000 (20%)              1,466,600            -586,640  (40%)
                         Pasture          137,100            41,130  (30%)                 433,400           390,060   (90%)                348,300            313,470   (90%)
                         Forest           196,700            157,360 (80%)              1,608,000            1,286,400 (M)                5,379,600         4,642,640    (90%)
                         Other            334,700            167,350 (50%)                 564,100           225,640   (40%)                407,600            285,320   (70%)
                                                             776,090                                         T916,100                                       -C-,027,070

                        30 Appendix 17

                        TABLE 17-21 (continued) Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat
                                     -    PLANNING SUBAREA 3.1                          PLANNING SUBAREA 3.2                           PLANNING SUBAREA 4.1
                           YEAR                          ACRES OF                                     ACRES OF                                        ACRES OF
                            AND                          HUNTABLE LAND                              HUNTABLE LAND                                   HUNTABLE LAND
                        LAND USE     TOTAL ACRES         (%) TOTAL                 TOTAL ACRES        (%) TOTAL                   TOTAL ACRES         M TOTAL

                        1966-67
                        Cropland       531,200           265,600  (50%)            2,370,000          474,000  (20%)              2,215,600           332,340  (15%)
                        Pasture        173,600           156,240  (90%)              185,200          138o9OO  (75%)                 117,700          88,275   (75%)
                        Forest       2,914,300        2,185,725   (75%)            1,194,700          955,760  (80%)                 665,700          532,560  (80%)
                        Other          219,100           153,370  (70%)              285,200          142,600  (50%)                 222,000          88,800   (40%)
                                                      2,760,935                                    1,711,260                                        1,041,975

                        1980
                      -Ur-op- F=n      530,100           265,050  (50%)            2,339,400          467,880  (20%               2,013,000           301,950  (15%)
                        Pasture        173,200           155,880  (90%)              182,800          137,100  (75%)                 107,000          80,250   (75%)
                        Forest       2,908,000        2,181,000   (75%)            1,179,300          943,440  (80%)                 604,800          483,840  (80%)
                        Other          218,600           153,020  (70%)              281,500          140,750  (50%)                 201,700          80,680   (40%)
                                                      2,754,950                                    1,689,170                                          946,720

                        2000
                        Cropland       528,600           264,300  (50%)            2,294,800          458,960  (20%)              1,726,000           258,900  (15%)
                        Pasture        172,700           155,430  (90%)              179,300          134,475  (75%)                 91,800           68,850   (75%)
                        Forest       2,899,700        2,174,775   (75%)            1,156,800          925,440  (80%)                 518,600          414,880  (80%)
                        Other          218,000           152,600  (70%)              276,100          138,050  (50%)                 173,000          69,200   (40%)
                                                      2,747,105                                    1,656,W                                            811,830

                        2020
                        Cropland       526,700           263,350  (50%)            2,264,300          452,860  (20%)              1,535,900           230,385  (15%)
                        Pasture        172,100           154,890  (90%)              176,900          132,675  (75%)                 81,700           61,275   (75%)
                        Forest       2,899,400        2,167,050   (75%)            1,141,400          913,120  (80%)                 461,500          369,200  (80%)
                        Other          217,200           152,040  (70%)              272,400          136,200  (50%)                 154,000          61,600   (40%)
                                                      2,737,330                                    1,634,855                                          722,460

                                     -    PLANNING SUBAREA 4.2                          PLANNING SUBAREA 4.3                           PLANNING SUBAREA 4.4
                           YEAR                          ACRES OF                                     ACRES OF                                        ACRES OF
                            AND                          HUNTABLE LAND                             HUNTABLE LAND                                    HUNTABLE LAND
                        LAND 13SE    TOTAL ACRES         (%) TOTAL                 TOTAL ACRES        (%) TOTAL                   TOTAL ACRES         (%) TOTAL

                        1966-67
                        Cropland     4,735,100           710,265  ( 15%)             741,300          593,040  ( 80%)                858,700          214,675  (25%)
                        Pasture        213,800           192,420  ( 90%)             131,300          118,170  ( 90%)                252,600          126,300  (50%)
                        Forest         453,400           453,400  (100%)             538,800          538,800  (100%)             1,364,500           818,700  (60%)
                        Other          349,300           139,720  ( 40%)             288,200          201,740  ( 70%)                109,100          21,820   (20%)
                                                      1,495,805                                    1,451,750                                        1,181,495

                        1980
                        Cropland     4,683,400           702,510  ( 15%)             680,000          544,000  ( 80%)                841,200          126,180  (15%)
                        Pasture        211,500           190,350  ( 90%)             120,500          108,450  ( 90%)                247,500          74,250   (30%)
                        Forest         448,500           448,500  (100%)             494,300          494,300  (100%)             1,336,700           668,350  (50%)
                        Other          345,500           138,200  ( 40%)             264,400          185,080  ( 70%)                106,900          16,035   (15%)
                                                      1,479,560                                    1,331,830                                          884,815

                        2000
                        Cropland     4,599,800           689,970  ( 15%)             566,500          453,200  ( 80%)                810,400          81,040   (10%)
                        Pasture        207,700           186,930  ( 90%)             100,400          90,360   ( 90%)                238,400          59,600   (25%)
                        Forest         440,500           440,500  (100%)             411,800          411,800  (100%)             1,287,700           515,080  (40%)
                        Other          339,300           135,720  ( 40%)             220,300          154,210  ( 70%)                103,000          15,450   (15%)
                                                      1,453,120                                    1,109,570                                          671,170

                        2020
                        Cropland     4,511,900           676,785  ( 15%)             471,300          377,040  ( 80%)                781,900          78,190   (10%)
                        Pasture        203,700           183,330  ( 90%)               83,600         75,240   ( 90%)                230,000          57,500   (25%)
                        Forest         432,100           432,100  (100%)             342,600          342,600  (100%)             1,242,500           497,000  (40%)
                        Other          232,800           93,120   ( 40%)             183,300          128,310  ( 70%)                99,400           14,910   (15%)
                                                      1,385,335                                       923,190                                         647,600

                                                                                                                     Present Status of Wildlife 31

                       TABLE 17-21 (continued) Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat
                                         PLANNING SUBAREA 5.1                          PLANNING SUBAREA 5.2                          PLANNING SUBAREA 5.3
                          YEAR                          ACRES OF                                     ACRES OF                                        ACRES OF
                           AND                       HUNTABLE LAND                                HUNTABLE LAND                                   HUNTABLE LAND
                       LAND USE        TOTAL ACRES      (%) TOTAL                TOTAL ACRES         (%) TOTAL                  TOTAL ACRES          (%) TOTAL

                       1966-67
                       Cropland        1,055,100        263,775  (25%)           1,759,100           527,730 (30%)                633,900            316,950   (50%)
                       Pasture         162,900          73,305   (45%)              443,700          221,850 (50%)                254,400            152,640   (60%)
                       Forest          871,500          479,325  (55%)           2,545,700        1,781,990  (70%)              2,215,400         2tlO4v63O    (95%)
                       Other           98,100           19,620   (20%)              428,200          85,640  (20%)                136,000            40,800    (302)
                                                        836,025                                   2,617,210                                       2,615,020

                       1980
                       Cropland        1,040,500        156,075  (15%)           1,734,600           260,190 (15%)                633,700            253t480   (40%)
                       Pasture         160,700          64,280   (40%)              437,500          196,875 (45%)                254,300            127,150   (50%)
                       Forest          -859,500         429,750  (40%)           2,510,200        1,506,120  (60%)              2,214,900         1,993t4lO    (90%)
                       Other           96,700           14,505   (15%)              422,200          63,330  (15%)                136,000            27,200    (20%)
                                                        664,610                                   2,026,515                                       2,401,240

                       2000
                       Cropland        1,020,900        153,135  (15Z)           1,703,600           255,540 (15%)                632,300            158,075   (252)
                       Pasture         157,700          31,540   (20%)              429,700          171,880 (40%)                253,700            101,480   (40%)
                       Forest          843,300          337,320  (40%)           2,465,400        1,232,700  (50%)              2,210,100         1,989,090    (90%)
                       Other           94,900           14,235   (15%)              414,700          62,205  (15%)                135,700            20,355    (15%)
                                                        536,230                                   1,722,325                                       2,269,000

                       2020
                       Cropland        996,100          99,610   (10%)           1,670,300           250,545 (15%)                630,700            157,675   (25%)
                       Pasture         153,900          30,780   (20%)              421,300          168,520 (40%)                253,100            101,240   (40%)
                       Forest          822,800          329,120  (40%)           2,417,200        lt208,6OO  (50%)              2,204,600         1,984,140    (90Z)
                       Other           92,600           13,890   (15%)              406,600          60,990  (15%)                135,400            20,310    (15%)
                                                        473,400                                   1,688,655                                       2,263,365

                       TABLE 17-22 Areas of Ecological Significance in Minnesota (1971)

                       PSA      County                  Name of Area                                    Importance            Ownership                  Acres

                       1.1      Carlton           Perch Lake                                      Wild  Rice Bed              Indian Lands                     778
                                Carlton                 ---                                       Wild  Rice Bed              State                            200
                                Carlton           Jay Cook State Park*                                  ---                   State                        11,196

                                Cook              Cascade River State Park                              ---                   State                        2,813
                                Cook              Cross River State Wayside                             ---                   State                        2,560
                                Cook              Devils Tract State Wayside                            ---                   State                            240
                                Cook              Judge C.R. Magney State Park                          ---                   State                        4,514
                                Cook              Kodonce River State Park                                                    State                            128
                                Cook              Temperance River State Park                           ---                   State                            133
                                Cook              Pigeon Point                                    Rugged Lake    Shore        Private Lands                6,000
                                                                                                  & Island   Complex

                                Lake              Baptism River State Park                              ---                   State                            706
                                Lake              Caribou Falls State Wayside                           ---                   State                            97
                                Lake              Flood Bay State Wayside                               ---                   State                            19
                                Lake              George Crosby Manitou State        Park               ---                   State                        4,790
                                Lake              Gooseberry Falls State Park                           ---                   State                        1,662
                                Lake              Split Rock Lighthouse State        Park                                     State                            996

                                St. Louis         Bearhead Lake State Park                              ---                   State                        4,373
                                St. Louis         McCarthy Beach State Park                             ---                   State                        3,737
                                St.    Louis      Savanna Portage State Park                            ---                   State                        15,758
                                St.    Louis      Tower Soudan State Park                               ---                   State                            982

                                Lake/Cook/        Boundary Waters Canoe Area                      Vast  Lake &                U.S. Forest              1,000,000
                                St. Louis                                                         Forest Wilderness           Service

                       *The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources acquires State Parks for the purpose of preserving their
                        scientific and natural values.

                      32 Appendix 17

                      TABLE 17-23 Areas of Ecological Significance in Indiana (1969)

                      PSA     County                Name of Area                                    -ership                                Acres

                      2.2     Lake            Merrilville Mire                              Private                                        30
                              Lake            Mystery Mounds                                Private                                        10
                                                                                                                            Total          40

                              LaPorte         Mt. Pleasant Swamp                            Private                                        45
                              LaPorte         Pinhook Bog                                   Private                                        170
                              LaPorte         South LaPorte Woods                           Private                                        26
                              LaPorte         Shoemaker Bog                                      ---                                       50
                              LaPorte         Barker Woods                                  Private                                        30
                                                                                                                            Total          321

                              Porter          Cowles Bog & Dunes                            Dunes Acres                                    20
                              Porter          Ancient Pines Nature Area,                    State*                                         180
                                              Indiana Dunes State Park
                              Porter          Ecology Coves, Dunes State    Park            State*                                         25
                              Porter          Little Calumet River                          Various                                        --
                                                                                                                            Total          '@-25

                              Elkhart         Parsons Swamp Woods                           Private                                        17
                              Elkhart         Wear Woods                                    Private                                        12
                                                                                                                            Total          29

                              LaGrange        Lane Lake                                     Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area*           20
                              LaGrange        Nasby Overlook Prairie                        Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area*           10
                              LaGrange        Olin Lake & Browand Woods                     Purdue University     Private                  180
                              LaGrange        Quog Lake                                     Private                                        100
                              LaGrange        Tamarack Bog                                  Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area*           65
                                                                                                                            Total          7-5

                              Noble           Lloyd W. Bender Preserve                      Acres,  Inc.                                   60
                              Noble           Gene Stratton Porter State Mem. Woods         State*                                           6
                              Noble           Griders Woods                                 Tri-County State Fish & Game Area*             17
                              Noble           Long Swamp Woods & Pond                       Private                                        40
                              Noble           Loni Daw Nature Preserve                      Acres, Inc.                                    25
                              Noble           Merry Lea Nature & Religious Center           Merry Lea Foundation                           600
                              Noble           Edna W. Spurgeon Woodland Reserve             Acres, Inc.                                    65
                                                                                                                            Total          713

                      2.3     St. Joseph      Clingenspell Woods & New-Oak-Road    Bog      Private (State to purchase)                    80
                              St. Joseph      St. Marys College Nature Area                 St. Marys College                              100
                              St. Joseph      Bendix Gift Park Woods                        St. Joseph County   Park Dept.                 30
                              St. Joseph      Spicer Lake                                   Private                                        30
                                                                                                                            Total          240

                              Steuben         Fawn River below Orland                       State stream through private    land           4.7 miles
                              Steuben         Barnes Swamp                                  Private                                        125
                              Steuben         Beaverdam Lake                                State*                                         55
                              Steuben         Beechwood Nature Preserve                     Acres, Inc.                                    19
                              Steuben         Cedar Marsh                                   Private                                     small
                              Steuben         Charles McClue Reserve                        County                                         80
                              Steuben         Marsh Lake                                    Club & individuals                             70
                              Steuben         Stayner Dry Prairie                           Pigeon  River State  Fish    Came Area*        15
                              Steuben         Wing Haven                                    Private                                        200
                              Steuben         Woodland Bog                                  Acres, Inc.                                    20
                                                                                                                            Total          !@8-4

                      4.2     Allen           Spring Lake Woods & Bog                       Private                                        20
                              Allen           Bluecast Woods                                Private                                        25
                              Allen           Fox Island                                    Private                                        200
                                                                                                                            Total          T4-5

                              Dekalb          Kado-lato Woods                               Private                                        40

                      All State owned areas are managed by     the Indiana Department of    Natural   Resources.

                                                                                                               Present Status of Wildlife 33

                      TABLE 17-24 Areas of Ecological Significance in Wisconsin (1970)*

                      PSA          County                   Name of Area                         Importance                                         Acres

                      1.1   Ashland                     Bad River-Kakagon Marsh             Vast marshland                                          10,000
                            Bayfield-Ashland            Apostle Islands                     21 Islands - natural state                              40,000
                            Douglas                     Brule River                         Important trout stream                                   1,000
                            Douglas                     Douglas County Grouse Area          Jack pine barren, sharp-tailed grouse mgmt. area              240

                      2.1   Door                        Peninsula Beech Forest              Beech forest                                                  30
                            Door                        Peninsula Cedar-Spruce Grove        White cedar, white spruce, open forest                        40
                            Door                        Ridges Sanctuary-Baileys Harbor     Abandoned beach ridge, many rare plants                       700
                            Door                        Sister Islands                      Gull nesting area & wildlife refuge                           15
                            Door                        Tofts Point                         Hemlocks, white pine, & northern hardwoods,                   300
                                                                                               white cedar & spruce on dolomite outcrop
                            Door                        Whitefish Bay Dunes                 Best dunes on Lake Michigan in State                          400
                            Door                        Rock Island State Park              Isolated island, supports excellent northern                  900
                                                                                               hardwood timber

                            Fond   do Lac               Ripon Prairie                       Assortment of prairie relics                                  1.5
                            Fond   du Lac               Spruce Lake Bog                     Open bog & tamarack, spruce forest                            117
                            Fond   du Lac               Top 0' the Thumb**                  Marshes, islands, & bays                                 4,800
                            Fond   do Lac               Waupun Park Maple Forest            Old growth sugar maple, basswood, & red oak forest            40
                            Fond   du Lac               Haskell Noyes Memorial Woods        Sugar maple, red oak, & basswood forest with the              70
                                                                                               Kettle Moraine State Forest

                            Langlade                    Flora Lake                          Spring pond surrounded by swamp conifers                      40
                            Manitowoc                   Wilderness Ridge                    Abandoned beach line, pine forest with hemlock                8
                            Manitowoc                   VanderBloemen Bog                   Rich growth of ferns, bog shrubs, & insectivorous             24
                                                                                               plants
                            Manitowoc                   Maribel Caves                       Niagara dolomite escarpment, shaded cliff community           8
                            Manitowoc                   Two Creek Buried  Forest            Exposed remains of a boreal forest                            12
                            Marinette                   Marinette County  Beech Forest      Northern hardwoods with areas of nearly pure beech            40
                            Marinette                   Lawrence Creek                      One-half mile of trout stream used for research               25

                            Oconto                      Charles Pond                        Lake inlet & marsh, 40 acres of maple, elm, basswood          110
                            Sheboygan                   Cedar Grove,  Hawk                  Gathering place for hawks during migration                    32
                            Sheboygan                   Terry Andrae St. Park Extension**   Sand dunes and marsh                                      1,000
                            Waupaca                     Cactus Rock                         Dry prairie, includes rare dwarf cactus on                    20
                                                                                               granite outcrop
                            Kenosha                     Silver Lake Bog                     Excellent open bog                                            30
                            Kenosha                     New Muster Bog Island               15 acres of sand knoll of oaks in tamarack bog                55
                            Kenosha                     Chiwaukee Prairie                   Finest prairie remaining in State                             65
                            Ozaukee                     Fairy Chasm                         80 foot deep chasm with cold microclimate                     55
                            Ozaukee                     Cedarburg Beech Woods               Healthy stand of beech, hard maple, & white ash               50
                            Ozaukee                     Cedarburg Bog                       Tamarack swamp forest with black spruce & open bog            392
                            Racine                      Sanders Park Hardwoods              Red oak & white ash forest                                    30

                            Waukesha                    Scuppernong Prairie                 Wet prairie with small oak  opening                           25
                            Waukesha                    Eagle Oak Opening                   Showy pasque flowers & other dry prairie species              60
                                                                                               with burr & white oak on morainal debris

                        All areas have been designated scientific or natural areas by the State Board for the Preservation of Scientific Areas and
                        are in State ownership.
                        Areas not currently under public ownership but are slated for State ownership.

                      TABLE 17-25 Areas of Ecological Significance in Illinois (1969)

                      PSA          County                    Name of Area                         Importance                                         Acres

                      2.2   Lake                        Illinois Beach State Park           Sand & marsh terrace with dune ridges, prairie            1,550
                                                                                               grasses, other unusual flora
                            Lake                        Illinois Beach State Park  Ext.*    Sand ridge & marshes                                      2,000
                            Lake                        Volo Bog*                           Unusual flora                                                 47
                            Lake                        Wauconda Bog*                       Unusual flora                                                 67
                            Kane                        Trout Park* (Elgin Botanical        Over 60 species of grass and other unique flora               60
                                                          Garden)

                       Private ownership

                       34 Appendix 17

                       TABLE 17-26 Areas of Ecological Significance in Michigan (1969)

                       PSA        County                     Name of Area                         Importance                                          Acres

                       1.2   Chippewa  & Luce           Betsie Lake Natural Area Preserve                                                             14,137
                             Baraga &  Marquette        Huron Mountains*                     Highest terrain in Michigan wilderness.                  100,000
                                                                                               Habitat for lynx & wolf.
                             Alger                      Pictured Rocks*                      Cliffs, sand dunes, lakes, & ponds                       100,000
                             Chippewa                   Vermilion Beach*                     Beaches, bogs, & marshes                                 3,200
                             Chippewa                   Whitefish Bay*                       Beaches, dunes, marshes, & forests                         600
                             Chippewa                   Raber Point*                         Geologic interest, fossils, lakes,   & forest            5,800
                             Chippewa                   Potagonnissing    Bay*               21 Island complex with marshes                           2,800
                             Chippewa                   St. Vital Point*                     Wide beaches & mixed conifer, hardwood forest            5,600

                       2.3   Muskegon  & Ottawa         County Line*                         Massive dune complex one mile wide, fine beaches         2,500
                             Allegan                    Saugatuck*                           Dune complex, beaches, & deciduous forest                1,400
                             Van Buren                  Thunder Mountain*                    Dune complex, wide beaches, & deciduous forest             500
                             Berrien                    Stevensville* (3 units)              Dune complex, shallow lakes, & marsh                     2,000

                       2.4   Benzie                     Betsie Point*                        Sand dunes & deciduous forest                              500
                             Benzie                     Herring Lake*                        Bluffs, dunes, & lake complex                              900
                             Benzie                     Arcadia*                             Bar Lake & fine beaches                                    700

                             Mason                      Bass Lake Dunes*                     High dunes & beaches                                       600
                             Oceana    & Muskegon       Flowei Creek Dunes*                  Dunes, creek mouth beaches                               1,200
                             Mackinac                   Boise Blanc Nature Study Area                                                                   696
                             Mackinac                   Point Patterson*                     Beaches, marsh, dunes                                    12,000
                             Schoolcraft                Seul Choix*                          Beaches, dunes, marshes, & deciduous forest              5,500
                             Emmet                      Sturgeon Bay*                        High dunes, connects State Forest to State Park          2,200
                             Charlevoix                 Fisherman Island*                    Shoal area around island & shore dunes                   1,500
                             Leelanau                   Cat Head Bay*                        Fine beach, dunes, & shallow water                       3,000
                             Leelanau                   Sleeping Bear*                       One of the highest & largest sand dune   complexes       30,000
                                                                                               in Great Lakes with National significance
                             Leelanau                   South Manitou Island
                                                          Gulf Point Nature Study Area                                                                  453
                                                          Nature Reservation                                                                            551
                                                          Natural Area Preserve                                                                       1,038

                             Roscommon                  Roscommon Red Pine Nature                                                                       160
                                                          Area Preserve

                       3.1   Presque Isle               Besser Natural Area                                                                             135
                             Presque Isle               Lake Breeze*                         Beach, dunes, & coniferous forest                        1,000
                             Presque Isle               Thompsons Harbor*                    Rocky points, harbor, & bays                             1,200
                             Alpena                     South Point*                         Wide shoal area, beach, & forest                         3,400
                             Alcona                     Sturgeon Point*                      Beaches, gull nesting point, shallow bays                4,000
                             Iosco                      Au Sable Point*                      Shallow waters, wide beaches, dunes, & conifers            300
                             losco                      Tawas Point*                         Beaches, tamarack bog, forest                            1,500

                       3.2   Bay                        Tobico Marsh*                        Marsh & lagoon complex                                     517
                             Huron                      Port Crescent*                       River course through sand dunes & marsh                  2,000

                       4.4   Wayne                      Celeron Island                       Vital shallow water waterfowl feeding area               1,000
                                                                                              and shore marshes

                       Areas not  currently in public ownership.

                       TABLE 17-27 Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio (1969)

                       PSA        County                     Name of Area                         Importance                                          Acres

                       4.2   Allen                      Heslers Woods                        Rich flora                                                  30
                             Allen                      Roberts Property                     Woods                                                       25
                             Allen                      Shenk Property                       Wildflowers                                                 15
                             Crawford                   Crawford County   Prairie            Burr oak, savanna tall grass prairie                          5
                             Crawford                   Tschanen Woods                       Good beech, maple                                           26

                                                                                                                Present Status of Wildlife 35

                       TABLE 17-27 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio (1969)

                       PSA        County                     Name of Area                         Importance                                          Acres

                       4.2   Defiance                    Krills Lake                         Odonata fauna                                                 30
                             Defiance                    "Tree Farm"                         Sample of flora for the region                                78
                             Erie                        Berlin Heights Ravine               Flora (hemlock & others)                                 Unknown
                             Erie                        Resthaven Wildlife Area*            Former wet-marl prairie                                  2,328
                             Erie                        Cedar Point                         Marsh vegetation                                              325
                             Erie                        Galpin Wildlife Preserve*           Rich flora                                                    37
                             Erie                        Lotus Beds                          American & Oriental lotus                                Unknown
                             Erie                        Sheldons Folley                     White oak, beech, hickory, sassafras, &                       54
                                                                                               black walnut
                             Erie                        Kellys Island*                      Unique geology, upland game habitat                           670
                             Erie                        Glacial Grooves*                    National Natural Landmark                                     1
                             Erie                        Plum Brook                          Dunes & marsh, high value shore & wading                 1,400
                                                                                               bird habitat

                             Fulton                      Maumee State Forest*                Some dunes & wet prairie                                 3,071
                             Fulton                      Coll Woods*                         old growth hardwood forest, nearly virgin                50-70
                             Ottawa                      Cooks Woods                         Great variety of trees, shrubs, & herbs                       80
                             Ottawa                      Haunks Pond, Middle Bass Island     Pond succession & swamp forest                                2
                             Ottawa                      Lakeside Daisy                      Lakeside daisy                                           Unknown
                             Ottawa                      Middle Harbor*                      First class sanctuary for waterfowl & wildlife                200
                             Ottawa                      Redbuds                             Mature redbuds                                           Unknown
                             Ottawa                      Sand Point                          Dunes & marsh                                            Unknown

                             Lucas                       Irwin Prairie                       Wet prairie                                                   80
                             Lucas                       Oak Openings Metro Park*            Unusual flora, sand dunes                                3,200
                             Seneca                      Swamp & Marsh                       Good, unspoiled wetlands                                      160
                             Van Wert                    Heistand,Woods                      Wet forest                                                    18
                             Van Wert                    York Township Woods                 Believed to be a virgin swamp forest                     Unknown
                             Williams                    Hayes Lake                          Water with small bog                                          5
                             Williams                    Mud Lake                            Small, shallow lake with bog meadow                      Unknown
                             Williams                    Nettle Lake                         Natural pothole surrounded by wooded hills                    94
                             Williams                    Opdycke Woods                       Good burr oak, white oak                                      45
                             Wood                        New Rochester    Woods              Spring flora                                                  375
                             Wood                        Steidman Wildlife Sanctuary         Second growth timber                                          65
                             Wood                        Weston Cemetery Pond                Heavy aquatic vegetation
                             Wyandot                     Killdeer Plains*                    Formerly wet prairie (try to restore)                    6,174

                       4.3   Ashtabula                   Armstrong Hemlock Grove             Bog with sphagnum, mature hemlocks                            4-5
                             Ashtabula                   Conneaut Creek                      Spring flora, hemlocks & other northern species               225
                             Ashtabula                   Fillingham Road Woods               Spring flora & second growth timber                           70
                             Ashtabula                   Geneva-on-the-Lake                  Lagoons & deciduous forested creek mouth                      244
                             Ashtabula                   Heronry (Great Blue)                Mature beech forest                                      Unknown
                             Ashtabula                   Lisowski Property                   Beech- maple, yellow birch, & hemlock forest,            Unknown
                                                                                               spring flora
                             Ashtabula                   Pennline Bog                        Swamp forest recently cut, larch                              50
                             Ashtabula                   Plymouth Marsh                      Elm swamp forest                                              20
                             Ashtabula                   Swamp Forest                        Elm humid swamp forest                                   Unknown
                             Ashtabula                   Thoburn Property                    Old farm & second growth forest                               160
                             Ashtabula                   Vort Woods                          Excellent herbaceous flora                                    50
                             Ashtabula                   Warners Hollow                      Gorge with Canadian zone life, newts & salamanders       Unknown
                             Cuyahoga                    Cleveland Metro Park District*      Hemlock coves, gorges, oak forests, ponds,               Unknown
                                                                                               swamps, beech-maple forest
                             Cuyahoga                    Lake Abrams                         Open water marsh                                         20-30
                             Cuyahoga                    Tinkers Creek*                      National Natural Landmark                                1,335
                             Cuyahoga                    North Chagrin Reservation*          Good forest & spring flora                               1,719
                             Cuyahoga                    Brecksville Reservation*            Good forest                                              2,500
                             Geauga                      Ansells L5dges                      Beech, sweet birch, hemlock & mountain maple             Unknown
                             Geauga                      Fern Lake                           Glacial bog lake with floating margin                         20
                             Geauga                      Holden Arboretum                    National Natural Landmark                                2,100
                             Geauga                      Little Mountain                     Rainfall up to-50-60 inches, white pine & hemlock        Unknown
                             Geauga                      Parkman Gorge                       Gorge of Grand River, hemlocks & mountain maple          Unknown
                             Geauga                      Punderson Lake State Park*          Emerald Lake, boggy margin                                    25
                             Geauga                      Raised Bog                          Raised iron bog on hillside                                   I
                             Geauga                      Stebbins Gulch                      Deep ravine of northern species                          Unknown
                             Geauga                      White Pine Bog   Forest             Peat bog forest                                          50-100
                             Geauga                      Whittam Memorial Forest*            Woodland rich in species of trees                             90
                             Lake                        Cascade Falls                       Scenic falls on shale                                    Unknown
                             Lake                        Chapin State Forest*                Mature red oak, cucumber, tulip, etc.                         361
                             Lake                        Daykin Swamp3                       Essentially virgin                                            23
                             Lake                        Hells Hollow*                       Undisturbed valley                                            500

                       36 Appendix 17

                       TABLE         17-27 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio. (1969)

                       PSA           County                    Name of- Area                         Importance                                           Acres

                       4.3   Lak                          Indian Point*                         High flattopped point, essentially virgin                       116
                             Lake                         Kimball Woods3                        Second growth woods, rolling terrain                            100
                             Lake                         Kitts Gully                           White pine, hemlock, Canada honeysuckle                   Unknown
                             Lake                         Mentor Marsh*                         Virgin swamp forest, marsh & open water                         560
                             Lake                         Mill Creek Hogback*                   Buffalo berry, hemlock, spring flora                            172
                             Lake                         Paine Hollow                          Hardwood, pine, hemlock                                   Unknown
                             Lake                         Penitentiary Gulch                    Deep ravine, northern species                             Unknown
                             Lake                         Taxus (Canada Yew)  Habitat           Steep slope with mature hemlock & stand of Taxus          Unknown
                             Lake                         Wickliffe High School*                Large woods & swamp                                       Unknown
                             Lorain                       Chance Creek                          Hemlock,*beech-maple forest                                     68
                             Medina                       Hardscrabble Heronry                  Beech, maple, elm, white ash, & about 20                  Unknown
                                                                                                  blue heron nests
                             Medina                       Hinckley Reservation                  Pond, lowland forest, sandstone cliffs                    1,890
                             Medina                       Spruce Run                            Probably best fern flora in county                        Unknown
                             Portage                      Bird Bog                              Laborador tea, leather leaf, etc.                               25
                             Portage                      Crystal Lake                          Glacial lake with jellyfish                               Unknown
                             Portage                      Nelson-Kennedy Ledges*                Azaleas, trillium, & sandstone formation                        167
                             Portage                      Dollar Lake                           Tamarack-sphagnum bog lake                                Unknown
                             Portage                      Mantua Swamp                          Rare orchids, Philadelphia lily, Castelleja,                    140
                                                                                                  azalea, shrubby cinquefoil
                             Portage                      Beverly Woods3                        Swamp & mixed hardwood forest                                   42
                             Portage                      Jennings Woods3                       Wildflower habitat                                              72
                             Portage                      Frame Lake Bog3                       Tamarack, shrubby cinquefoil,   bayberry, buckthorn             28
                             Portage                      Triangle Lake                         Glacial bay, grass-of-parnassis                           Unknown
                             Portage                      Eagle Creek2                          Swamp forest & bog                                              270
                             Summit                       Cranberry Bog                         Sphagnum, cranberry, poison sumac                         Several
                             Summit                       532 Swamp                             Swamp with much open water                                Unknown
                             Summit                       Furnace Run*                          Young valley, great variety of habitat                          885
                             Summit                       Green Township                        Singer Lake, smaller ponds, marsh, bog, swamp           'Unknown
                             Summit                       Knight Property                       About 14,000 bd ft/ acre of tulip, cucumber,              Unknown
                                                                                                  red oak, etc.
                             Summit                       Nimisila Bog Meadow                   Open meadows of sphagnum. shrubby cinquefoil,             Several
                                                                                                  blazing star, fringed gentian, orchids
                             Summit                       Sand Run Metro Park*                  Rugged terrain                                                  987
                             Summit                       Stumpy Basin3                         Old canal basin, marsh, mixed mesophytic forest                 22
                             Summit                       Tamarack Swamps                       Beech-maple, oak forest, & hemlock                        1,600
                             Summit                       Virginia Kendall Metro Park*          Beech-maple on Sharon conglomerate formation              1,575

                       Publicly owned; all others are     private except those with special     reference marks as follows:
                       1Owned by Bowling Green State University           2owned by Nature Conservancy        3Owned by Kent State University

                       TABLE      17-28 Areas of Ecological Significance in Pennsylvania (1970)

                       PSA        County                      Name of Area                           Importance                                           Acres

                       4.4   Erie                         Elk Creek*                            Unique ravine with hemlock-hardwood forest                      850
                                                                                                  & beach at mouth of ravine
                             Erie                         Presque Isle State Park               7.8 mile peninsula with marshes, beaches,                 4,370
                                                                                                  & unique ecology
                             Erie                         Siegal Marsh*                         Unusual marsh & swamp ecosystem                           1,303
                             Erie                         State Game Land No. 109               Wetland forest area                                       1,638

                       Area not currently in public ownership.

                       TABLE 17-29 Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969)

                       PSA        County                      Name of Area                           Importance                                           Acres
                       4.4   Chautauqua                   Canadaway Creek, Came Mgnt.Axea2      Heron rookery                                             2,180
                             Erie & Cattaraugus           Zoar Valley2                          Geologic features and unusual flora                       3,534
                             Erie                         Springville Bog*                      Unusual flora                                                   26
                             Niagara                      Niagara Power Dam &                   Geologic feature                                                NIA
                                                          Niagara Falls2&3
                       5.1   Allegany                     Hanging Bog, Came Mgnt.Area 2         Unusual flora, rare orchids                               4,350
                             Allegany                     Moss Lake*                            Unusual flora                                                   26

                                                                                                                     Present Status of Wildlife 37

                       TABLE 17-29 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969)

                       PSA          County                      Name of Area                           Importance                                             Acres

                       5.1    Genesee & Monroe             Bergen Swamp*                          Massasauga rattler, marl bog, unusual flora                 1,200
                              Genesee & Orleans            Oak Orchard Complex2                   Unusual flora & fauna                                       17,000
                              Livingston                   Rattlesnake Hill Game Kgnt.Area2       Timber rattlers                                             5,150
                              Livingston                   Danville/Woodville'j@                  Unusual flora                                                 N/A
                              Livingston                   Caledonia State Fish Hatchery2         First fish hatchery in U.S.                                   N/A
                              Livingston  & Wyoming        Letchworth State Park2                 Geologic features & unusual   flora                         14,337
                              Monroe                       Kennedys Bog*                          Unusual flora, Canadian muskeg                                   5
                              Monroe                       Point at Hamlin Beach State Park2      Nesting area for bank swallows                              1,113
                              Monroe                       Braddock Bay Marsh2                    Marsh & ponds, waterfowl & furbearers                         ---
                              Monroe                       Thousand-acre Swamp                    Waterfowl, furbearers, rattlesnakes, & unique               1,000
                                                                                                    plant life
                              Monroe                       Genesee Falls*                         Scenic value in Rochester                                     ---
                              Monroe                       Devils Nose*                           Waterfowl & geologic value                                    190
                              Orleans                      East of Hulberton along                Unusual flora, bastard paw paw                                N/A
                                                           Barge Cana12
                              Wyoming                      Warsaw Glen*                           Unusual flora, mountain saxifrage                             N/A

                       5.2    Cayuga & others              Cayuga Lake*                           Geologic features                                           42,496
                              Cayuga & Seneca              Montazuma Marshl                       Marsh habitat                                               6,175
                              Cayuga                       Wood Mill, Town of Scipio*             Jeffersonia diphylZa, Twin leaf                               N/A
                              Cayuga                       Duck Lake Bogs, Town of Conquest*      Unusual flora                                                 N/A
                              Cayuga                       Howlands Island   State                Waterfowl & furbearer value                                 4,900
                                                           Game Mgmt.Area2
                              Madison                      Chittenango Falls State Park2          Unusual flora                                                 123
                              Oneida                       Fish Creek, Taberg*                    Unusual flora, Canadian primrose & butterwort                 N/A
                              Oneida                       Rome Sand Plains*                      Geologic feature                                            3,200
                              Onondaga                     Cicero Swamp2                          Unusual flora & fauna including Massasauga rattler          3,720
                              Onondaga                     Clark Reservation2                     Unusual flora, Hart's tongue fern                             228
                              Oswego                       Barrier Beaches2&*                     Gealogic features                                           5miles4
                              Oswego                       Salmon River Falls, Orwell*            Unusual flora, Canadian primrose & mountain                   N/A
                                                                                                    saxifrage
                              Oswego                       Deer Creek Marsh                       Waterfowl & furbearers, shore wetland                         ---
                              Oswego                       Three Mile Bay State Game              Fishery, waterfowl, & furbearers                              ---
                                                           Mgmt.Area, includes Toad
                                                           Harbor & Big Bay Creek2
                              Oswego                       Butterfly Marsh*                       Lake shore marshes, waterfowl & furbearers                    ---
                              Oswego                       Teal Marsh, Oswego Harbor*             Waterfowl & furbearers                                        ---
                              Oswego                       Peter Scott Swamp*                     Waterfowl & furbearer value                                   ---
                              Entire   Area                Finger Lakes*                          Unique group of fresh water    lakes & marshes
                              Oswego   & Wayne             Lake Ontario Barrier Beaches*          Beach;s & associated wetlands                                 ---
                              Herkimer                     Moose River Plains, headwaters         Wilderness area                                               ---
                                                           of Moose River2
                              Herkimer                     Fulton Chain of Lakes2
                              Herkimer                     Mud Pond, Jordanville*                 Unusual flora, rare orchids                                   ---
                              Herkimer                     Mountain Peaks 2000,+2&*

                              Wayne                        Mud Pond, Town or Zurich*              Unusual flora                                                 ---
                              Wayne                        Zurich Swamp*                          Ususual flora                                                 100
                              Wayne                        Chimney Bluffs*                        Geological features                                         3 miles4
                              Seneca                       Junius Ponds*                          Unusual flora & fauna, rare orchids, Bog                      ---
                                                                                                  or Muhlenberg's turtle
                              Seneca   & others            Seneca Lake*                           Geologic features                                           42,688
                              Tompkins                     Fall Creek Gorge, Ithaca*              Unusual flora                                                 N/A
                              Tompkins                     Taughannock Falls State Park2          Unusual flora & geological features                           794
                              Tompkins                     Connecticut Hill Game Mgmt.Area2       Unusual flora, coal skink                                   11,610
                              Yates                        Parish Glen, Naples*                   Heron rookery                                                 N/A
                       5.2 &  Herkimer   & St. Lawrence    Adirondack Forest & Preserve2l*        Wilderness, forest, & mountains
                       5.3

                       5.3    Jefferson                    Perch River Game Mgmt.Area2            Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers values
                              Jefferson                    Lakeview Marsh, includes               Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers values.                      ---
                                                           Ponds & Beach2                           Scenic area
                              Jefferson                    Dexter Marsh2                          Lakeshore marsh, waterfowl & furbearers
                              Jefferson                    Eldorado Shore, includes               Lakeshore marsh, waterfowl & furbearers                       ---
                                                           Black Pond*
                              Jefferson                    Indian River & Lakes*                  River & lake system, waterfowl, fish & furbearers             ---

                      38 Appendix 17

                      TABLE 17-29 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969)

                      PSA         County                    Name of Area                        Importance                                         Acres

                      5.3   Jefferson                  Little Galloo Island*               Geologic & scenic values                                 ---
                            Jefferson                  Goose Bay Islands*                  Geologic & scenic values                                 ---
                            Jefferson                  Goose Bay*                          Waterfowl significance                                   ---
                            Jefferson                  Wilson Bay Marsh*                   Waterfowl & wilderness                                   ---
                            Jefferson                  High Bluffs, Henderson area*        Harbor & Point, waterfowl & fishery values               ---
                            Jefferson                  N.Y. State Great Lakes              Sport & commercial fish Research &                       ---
                                                       Fisheries Station2                    Management Center
                            Jefferson                  Lake Ontario Off-Shore  islands*    High value for fishing, shorebirds, and diving           ---
                                                                                             ducks. Includes one nesting colony of
                                                                                             Double-crested Cormorant.
                            Jefferson                  1,000 Island Complex*               Geologic features
                            Jefferson                  Gull Island*                        Ring-billed Gull rookery                                 ---
                            Jefferson                  Galloo Island*                      Herring Gull rookery                                    5,000
                            Jefferson                  Tug Hill Plateau*                   Wilderness                                               ---
                            Jefferson                  Limestone Bluffs, Henderson Hbr.*   Geologic features                                     2 miles4
                            St. Lawrence               Wilson Hill Wildlife Mgmt. Area2    Waterfowl                                                ---
                            St. Lawrence               Chippewa Bay*                       Waterfowl & fishery values                               ---
                            St. Lawrence               Mountain Peaks 2000,+2&*                                                                     ---
                            St. Lawrence               Upper & Lower Lakes2                Waterfowl & fishery values                               ---
                            St. Lawrence               Fish Creek, Game Mgmt.Area2         Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers                         ---
                      4.4, St.  Lawrence               Erie Barge Canal2                   Connecting waterway between Great Lakes and              ---
                      5.1 &                                                                  Hudson River system. Recreation, fishin
                      5.2                                                                    hunting, allows interchange of aquatic Igiie.
                      1US Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife ownership.
                      2New York State Agencies ownership.
                      3New York State Power Authority ownership.
                      4Length of shoreline.

                      Private ownership.

                      2.2.2 Great Lakes Wetlands and Waterfowl                             conspicuous feature, are included in the definition,
                                                                                           but the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and
                                                                                           deep lakes are not included.
                      2.2.2.1 Introduction                                                 This definition works well for the inland
                                                                                        wetlands, but presents a confused picture
                        Although waterfowl, fish, and other forms Of                    along the shores of the Great Lakes. Shoal
                      wildlife are not restricted to political bound-                   area and shoreline marshes overlap, because
                      aries, this discussion will concentrate on the                    shoals include both marshes and adjacent
                      United States portion of the Great Lakes and                      shallow open water. For the purpose of this
                      their basins. There are two major categories of                   appendix we will consider shoal areas as wet-
                      water in the Great Lakes: the open waters of                      lands. The eight wetland types found in the
                      the Lakes with their associated shoreline                         Great Lakes Basin are defined in the Glossary.
                      marshes and shoal areas, and inland open
                      waters and associated marshes in the Basin's
                      drainage area.                                                    2.2.2.3 Wildlife and Great Lakes Wetlands

                                                                                           The open water of the Lakes produces mil-
                                                                                        lions of pounds of fish and is also important to
                      2.2.2.2 Defining Wetlands                                         many species of waterfowl. Migrating and
                                                                                        wintering waterfowl use the open waters as
                        It is necessary to understand the term "wet-                    resting areas. Large "rafts" of ducks And
                      lands." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in                     geese have been observed many miles from
                      its Circular 39 published in 1956 describes the                   land.
                      nature of wetlands:                                                  Although many species of waterfowl use the
                       The term "wetlands" as used in this report and in                open water, its overall value is low when com-
                       the wildlife field generally refers to lowlands covered          pared to the shoal and marsh areas along the
                       with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermit-                lakeshores. While the open water is used
                       tent waters. They are referred to by such names as
                       marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, potholes,                    primarily as a resting area, the shoals and
                       sloughs, and river over-flow lands. Shallow lakes                marshes are used for resting, nesting, and
                       and ponds, usually with emergent vegetation as a                                                      (continued on page 54)

                                                                                                                         Present Status of Wildlife 39

                                          .............
                                                 ........................
                                           .............

                                                                                            r                                                           ......
                                                                                                                   .................
                                                      .........                                                                              .*:72,4170
                                                .. .................. ..       ................... ......                                        .......

                                                                                           .......... .                             ...... .....
                                                                    ..... ............
                                                                                             ........ .....       ..............              ..
                                                                                                                 ............   : .:::::::    ,
                                                                                                               .......................

                                                                                                                     COO15 ....
                                                                                       .............     :::::::, * , , -
                                                                                   ................ .......
                                                                             ..............    I...... ....

                                                                                       LAKE ......... ..... .
                                   ........    ......I              ....               ..............

                                                               ......... .            ......
                                                               .......... .............
                                                                                   ...........
                                                               .......... ..............
                                                               .......... ..............
                                                                                                                                0
                                                               .......... .
                                                               .......... ......

                                                                             * 106,090
                                                                             024,000                          S

                                                                                                                       ell

                                                                                                                             APOSTLE ISLANDS
                                316,780                                                                                                                         S
                             0431,600
                                     ST. LOUIS       Duluth

                                49,590                                                           ......
                                 1,000
                             0 540

                                 CARLTON
                                                     0@
                                                     (1) z
                                                     U' 0<0 40                                                                              M,
                                                     Z  (-)                                ..............                                  WISCH
                                                        Ln 4 32,960
                                                     2     0 240                                                                               Co
                                                                                     0 4040
                                                                 r)nllrl AS                 RAYFIELD ......
                                                                                                                            10,970       14,240
                                                                                                                         06,560       06300
                                                                                                                          AND

                                              LEGEND
                                                                                                                            1,240
                                       NATIONAL FOREST LAND

                                       STATE FOREST LAND
                                                                                                        SCALE IN MILES
                                                   ..............
                                                   ..............
                                                   ..............
                                                   ...........
                                                   ................
                                                   ..................
                                                     .........
                                               ......................
                                                 . .................

                                0      STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND
                                0      COUNTY FOREST LAND                                            0 5 10 15 20 25

                                       STATE PARK LAND

                         FIGURE 17-4 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.1 as of 1970

                        40 Appendix 17

                                                                                                                 KEWEENAW
                                                                ISLE ROYALE                                       3,000

                                               KEWEENAW COUNTY
                                                                                            42,000                         LAKE     SUPERIOR

                                                                            65,000'

                                                 ...........       ....           .. ....
                                           ............................... .....
                                                                                                    0,
                             ......... :,:        ...                            ...  ::1.44,380                                                                      18,050
                                       ....... ...                               .. ..........
                                               ..... .                ...........                          72,000
                                                                         ..:-::::-1H0IJGHT0N-'                    BARAGA
                                                          .....................
                                                        9i@!Q:   :: : :, E*)*N';FC*NAGE)N-
                                                   ...............                                                             269,000
                                                                          @!c
                                                                11/a  .......                                                  MARQUETTE                               101,000
                                                          sco 4tv::::
                                                                                                                                                                       ALGER

                               LAKE SUPERIOR

                                                                                                           WHITEFISH
                                                                                                             SAY

                             ..... .....                                                                     .........

                             .......                                       287,000                    ::::217,:900  ....       22SPOO
                            oy,::::::                                                                 ...............
                             : ......                                            L CE                 :::::
                             .......                                                                  ....
                                  h:                                                                              6,4PREWA

                                                                                                                                                            DRUMMOND 1.

                                            LEGEND                                       CALE IN MILES
                                                                                            7I_
                                     NATIONAL FOREST LAND                            mms,
                                                                                     0   5  10  15 20 25
                                     STATE FOREST LAND
                                     "'@/ILE RO11

                                                                                                                                                         @DRU@-OND I

                        FIGURE 17-5 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.2 as of 1970

                                                                                                                        Present Status of Wildlife 41

                                                 .......       IRON

                                                                91,000

                                                                 A41C                  DICKINSON

                                                                                       219 000
                                                                         S//V
                                               ..........    :.0: . .
                                               : : : : : '. :: : : .'rc).'                        MENOMINEE
                                               ...........
                                               ..........
                                              ...........                         0
                                                             00
                                                                                    T10
                                               ............  ... F6 RE   CE
                                                                         MARINETTE

                                                                         07,580

                                               2,060          ......

                                                                   m m   v                                                         ASHINGTON
                                                                                                                                    ISLAND
                                              32,190         ...........

                                                          ..............
                                 171 7  0      LANGLADE

                                                  MENOMINEE

                                                                                                                   2,T30

                                                                                                       DOOR
                                         0 12,460                             0     170
                                                SHAWANO                        OCONTO             02,610
                                                                                                KEWAUNEE
                                                                                                o960
                                                                     OUTAGAMIE
                                                             03,180
                                                                                        Green Bay                       4*
                                         0 3,120                                 0980
                                         S 1,220                                       BROWN                         44
                                         WAUPACA                                           MANITOWOC                              SCALE IN MILES
                                                                          CALUMET                                              pm@ 0-4
                                                                                       * 2,610                                0   5 10 15 20 25
                                                                                       0 7,050

                           0 7,130
                                 IVAUSHARA            C3 3,950           03,17         1                                        LEGEND
                                                         WINNEBAGO       I
                                                       FO D DU LAC                 SHEBOYGAN                              NATIONAL FOREST LAND

                                                                                                                          STATE FOREST LAND
                          IJ 6, 300    016,350        * 91510                          12,470                      0      STATE PUBLIC HUNTINGAREA LAND
                          MARQU        GREEN LAKE     0 7,790                    10 1,100                          m      COUNTY PARK LAND
                                                                                  M 6,500                          Cm     STATE RECREATION AREA LAND

                                                                                                                          STATE PARK LAND

                        FIGURE 17-6 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.1 as of 1970

                    42 Appendix 17

                                             WASHINGTON     OZAUKEE
                                             4 3,01o       CI 1, too
                                             0 7,580

                                                                                                      LEGEND

                                                                                                 STATE FOREST LAND

                                               -                                          0      STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                                                 Milwaukee

                                                                                              SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                           L
                                              7,220                                            5    10  15  20
                                          0. 3,560       MILWAUKEE South Milwaukee
                                          WAUKESHA
                                WALWORTH

                                                      0   2,320
                                   4,020                              Racine
                             0     1,480               RACINE
                                                                              A4
                                                                     Kenosha
                                                      11 4,580

                                      WISCONSIN         KENOSHA
                                        ILLINOIS

                                                                     Waukegan           7r-

                                                      0 3,200

                                      McHENRY             LAKE

                                       KANE

                                                F

                                                       COOK

                                                                      Chicago                   7-

                                                                                                                     MICHIGAN
                                                   DU PAGE                                                           INDIANA
                                     Aurora V-

                                                          Joliet
                                                      OP                                                          11 4,500

                                                                                                                 LA POR TE
                                                                               O:z
                                                                               z 1<
                                                                13 3,200       :i 0

                                                             WILL                                   PORTER
                                   JWA
                                             0

                                A' RTH
                                 Lw 02
                                  4'   _O
                             0    1 .480

                                                                                                                  -@, /MICH IGAN

                                                                                    0 1,00                            0 2,300
                                                L                                      LAKE                           STARK

                   FIGURE 17-7 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.2 as of 1970

                                                                                                                    Present Status of Wildlife 43

                                                                               1,400              MONTCALM
                                                                                                    o 21,000

                                                                                      KENT

                                                                                      c3 8,400
                                                                   OTTAWA                             -                       CLINTON           SHIAWASSEE
                                                                                 *R;and                                     o 3,300
                                                                                          pids

                                                   Z,560
                                                                                                        0 1,900
                                 s
                                                                                                           10 IA
                                                                              ALLEGAN             BARRY                                   Lansing

                                                                                                    10                                0 4,100
                                                                         o 43,400              0 18,200
                                                                                                                       EATON              INGHAM
                                                                                                                 CALHOUN             JACKSON
                                                                VAN BUREN             KALAMAZOO

                                                                           Kalam 3zoo                                                      Jackson
                                                                                      1                                                0
                                                                                      EJ 2, 700                                          2,300
                                                                     CASS        ST. JOSEPH               BRANCH      I     HILLSDALE

                                                                  0 3,100             0 2,100                                o 2,400
                                           BERRIEN             MICHIGAN
                                                                INDIANA                                         u6c"        MICHIGAN
                                                                                                      -T`TE                     OHIO
                                                        1%0.,th                            0 9,100
                                                             Bend
                                                                                           LAGRANGE
                                                                                                NOBLE
                                                                        ELKHART

                                                      MARSHALL

                                              LEGEND                                                   SCALE IN MILES

                                                                                                                       2
                                       NATIONAL FORESTLAND                                          0 5 10 15 20
                                                                                                                                         ING
                                                                                                                                         SO
                                                                                                                                     JA@CKN
                                                                                                                                            a@

                               0       STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                        FIGURE 17-8 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.3 as of 1970

                       44 Appendix 17

                                                                                   SCHOOLCRAFT

                                                                                  4 285,000

                                                                            00.
                                                                                                    4 202,000
                                                                                                                             MACI@@Ag
                                                                      .... ...                                               ...          ......
                                                                                                                                   .7
                                                           ... 24t 5

                                                                                                                                             Mackinac Island

                                                                                                                                                        is a c Island
                                                              -0 'to                             D
                                                                                                               Beaver Island

                                                                   0

                                                                               \(,t                                            41 T5,000
                                                                                                                               \,_ EMMET
                                                                                                                             0 22,300
                                                                                                                             *  30,000
                                                                                                                             6::) 30
                                                                          North Manitou Island                               CHARLEVOIX

                                                                        South Manitou Island,3
                                                            S                                                          4     41,000
                                                                                                                               ANTRIM@
                                                                                                 11 OW
                                                                                          L ELANALI

                                                                                           BENZIE
                                                                                                      El 400
                                                                                       0 700          * 65,000               138,000
                                                                                           60,000 c::Z:) 640
                                                                                                    GRAND TRAVERSE
                                                                                                                          ..=KA
                                                                                         23)              38,000
                                                                                     0 3, 0        .........  v
                                                                                               ...............               88,000      4 195,000
                                                                                                                       0 11,800          o 3,400
                                                                                                                                        6:D 40
                                                                         Manistee      IYIANI@T@fF:
                                                                                  .............
                                                                                                           C@FORD                         ROSCOMMON

                                     LEGEND
                      (::::D NATIONAL FOREST LAND                             0  30                                  an
                               STATE FOREST LAND
                                                                                                                     16,000
                        0      STATE PuaLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                                                                               .. ........

                                                                                                                 0   9,800
                                                                           11 500                t'Q'3* ;'9' It' 01  3,000

                                                                                                     ....... ..
                                                                                                               MECOSTA
                                                                            066A;14A, ....
                                                                                                                   2,490

                                                                                               NEWAY
                                                                                     0 6,600                                            SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                     MljSKi66i::                                     t2l IM 20 25

                      FIGURE 17-9 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.4 as of 1970

                                                                                                         Present Status of Wildlife 45

                                          CHIPPEWA
                                          MACKINAC

                                                                                         DRUMMOND
                                                   oil                                     ISLAND

                                  Straits of M@ki-

                                                CD 30
                                                    180, 000          4 80,000

                                                         CHEBOYGAN           PRESQUE ISLE
                                                           Michi an

                                                                                        240            Thmder Bay
                                                91,000           4 134,000              42,000

                                                OTSEGO              MONTMORENCY             ALPENA

                                                164,000          *  54,COO               8,000

                                                                                      10.'4'1:50:: ...

                                                                    ... .. ...... ..............

                                            CRAWFORD,::::::::*        OSCODA ................ ALCO

                                                                                    ..........

                                                                   475,000
                                    LEGEND                                               ...
                              NATIONAL FOREST LAND                 OGEMAW              24,000
                              STATE FOREST LAND                                    ARENAC
                              STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LA140                   28,000
                                                                             0 100

                                                                                    SAGINAW SAY
                                         F4

                                                                                                                                  SCALE IN MILES

                                                                                                                               0   5   10  15  20

                     FIGURE 17-10 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.1 as of 1970

                 46 Appendix 17

                                                                              LAKE HURON

                      A 48,000            85,000
                          CLARE     GLADWIN                                 0
                                                               SAGINAW SAY         o 2,650

                                                                                  HURON
                                                        2,700
                          1,000                            rX., City
                        ISAB LLA            MIDLAND              BAY
                                         -F-               ,a  /@
                                                             .gmaw       27,300
                                               4 37, 000
                                               0    20,800               TUSCOLA

                               .0 5,900
                                GRATIOT             SAGINAW        Mount Morris

                                                               Flint

                                                                               0 91180

                                                                                  -APEER
                                                                  GENESEE
                                                             co 10
                                                             0 40

                            LEGEND

                       NATIONAL FOREST LAND                    SCALE IN MILES
                                                             L----- znm=@
                                                                    W S.Y
                                                               S -IN. Z@@
                                                                                  H
                                                        ?'70

                                                                 -ty

                                                                  Y
                                                   @B'A

                       STATE FOREST LAND                     0   5 10 15 20
                  0    STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                 FIGURE 17-11 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.2 as of 1970

                                                                                                    Present Status of Wildlife 47

                                                                                                                                     71
                                                                                                                                     m

                                                                                                                                        0
                                       LEGEND                                      S                                                    z
                           0     STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND                                             0  7,710

                                                                                                                  SANILAC

                                      SCALE IN MILES
                                   J@7         P---"
                                              10    15

                                                                                                             0 7,400

                                                                                                        ST. CLAIR
                                                                             OAKLAND                    MACOMB

                                            LIVINGSTON

                                         0 14,440                     0 18,090                       o 210

                                                                                        Pontiac

                                                                           WAYN
                                                                                E

                                                                                                                  LAKE ST. CLAIR

                                                Ann Arbor

                                                [1 9,810                  0 250

                                              WASHTENAW

                           0 500                           Ot 4,290

                                 LENAWEE     MICHI               ROE
                                               OHIO

                     FIGURE 17-12 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.1 as of 1970

                       48 Appendix 17

                                                                                                                                                          N
                                                                                                                                                     Wj'!Q E

                                                                                                                      LAKE ERIE

                                                    MICHIGAN                                                                          0
                                                         O'ri 10
                                                                                         LUCAS            Toledo
                                                    0 150                   3,070                             OTTAWA
                               DE KALB              WILLIAMS             FULTON             D 560               0 21  700                   Sandwky Bay

                                                         IANCE
                                                                                                                                     0 2,510
                                            <1           4 0                                                         SANDUSKY                     ERIE
                                        -Z-L0
                                            <  -1
                                               0                                              WOOD
                                            zi                                                                                           11 1,680
                                                                           PUTNAM

                                                                                                   Findlay
                            4 'F.,l Wayne           PAULDING                                                                SENECA      -     HURON
                                    ALLEN           VAN WEI@T                                                               CIRAWFORD

                                                                              ALL IN
                                                                                            HANCOCK           8,500
                                      ADAMS     0 360                   L      L,-a                          WYANDOT
                                                   MERCER          AUGLAIZE

                                                                                                                     LEGEND
                                                                    SCALE IN MILES                    4       STATE FOREST LAND
                                                                        10 15 20     25               0       STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND
                                                                                                                   Bay
                                                         U r"'j

                                                    0    '50

                                                     L   IA -S
                                                                         F

                                                         I
                                                    W'
                                              @DELF ANIE
                                                    0    420     @@AILE
                                                                                                          C3 S' 0
                                                                                L"                      LWYAND.T

                      FIGURE 17-13 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subareai.2 as of 1970

                                                                                                         Present Status of Wildlife 49

                                                    S

                                                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                                           z
                                                                                                                                           z
                                                                                                                                       0   0
                                                                                                                                       X   -<
                                                                                                                                           17,

                                                                                                                                           z

                                                                                           LAKE

                                                                                                                      0 730

                                                                                                                 ASHTABULA

                                    Lorain

                                                                                          0 1,370

                                                                                    GEAUGA

                                                            CUYAHOGA

                         0 690

                        LORAIN                                            kron
                                              E) 600                                        C3 4,000
                                              MEDINA                                          PORTAGE

                                                                     0

                                                                      SUMMIT

                                     LEGEND

                         0     STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                     FIGURE 17-14 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.3 as of 1970

                      50 Appendix 17

                                                                                                        LAKE ONTARIO

                                                                                                                 NIAGARA

                                                                                                             0   3,400

                                                                                                        Niagara  Falls

                                                                                                 Grand Island
                                                      AL

                                                         s                                                    Buffalo

                                                                                                     OP.-

                                                                                                                  500
                                                                                                                  1,080

                                                                                                                RIE
                                                      V        4-

                                  Presque Isle                 z                  15,000                             27, 100
                                                               <IX
                                                               > 0
                                                               -J:>-          0 2,200                            0 5,500
                                                     Erie      >-13:          * 59,960
                                                                 uj
                                                                 z
                                                               z                CHAUTAUQUA            NEWYORK          CATTARAUGUS          L
                                                               Uj
                      20                   0  11,700           a.                                 PENNSYLVANIA
                      :E z
                      0                        ERIE

                                                                                                         LEGEND

                                                               SCALE IN MILES                     STATE FOREST LAND
                                                          L                               0       STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND
                                                                        15    20
                                                                                                  STATE PARK LAND

                      FIGURE 17-15 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.4 as of 1970

                                                                 Present Status of Wildlife 51

                                        L A K E       0 N T A R 1 0

                                                                     Rochester

                                               C3 150

                                                       ORLEANS
                              Ils
                                                                     ?,280

                                               0 5,700                      MONROE

                                                    GENESEE

                                                                    2,600
                     C@,
                      f@,
                      @,Q                                         0 4,700
                                                                  * 14,340

                                                13 2,500
                                   N
                                 -ZAL@:             WYOMING
                                                       ALLEGANY

                                                       42,100
                                                     0 6,000

                            LEGEND                         NEWYORK
                                                         PENNSYLVANIA

                        STATE FOREST LAND
                                                                SCALE IN MILES
                        STATE PARK LAND                       Fm-@ - --
                    0   ST@TE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND        0   5  10  15
                                                    77Roche@r

               FIGURE 17-16 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.1 as of 1970

                       52 Appendix 17

                                                  A# E
                                                      S

                                                                                                        OSWEGO
                                                            0                  0

                                                                                         is, 200
                                                                                         17,700

                                                                                                                                  Rome

                                                                                                                                       Z'   Utica
                               ONTARIO  0 6,000                                    Syracu
                                                                                                                             0 35,300            o 4,300
                                                                                               ONONDAGA

                                                                                                                                                  HERKIMER
                                                                                L             2,100                23,500          ONEIDA
                                     0 1,400                                               [3 7,500             0 3,600
                                            YATES                            3,600                                   MADISON
                                                                        0 3,200
                                       4 1,900            0   200            CAYUGA
                                       - 4-00                 SEIWE       3-510

                                                  9750

                                                                       4'   19,000
                                                                       0    6,200
                                                       16,500        C@7 5 20
                                                   0 5,600                      TOMPKINS
                                                      SCHUYLER

                                                                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                                                    <0 NATIONAL FOREST LAND
                                                                     SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                      4      STATE FOREST LAND
                                                                  0    5   10   15   20
                                                                                                      0      STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                      FIGURE 17-17 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.2 as of 1970

                                                                                                                  Present Status of Wildlife 53

                                                                                                   4,500
                                                                                             0 16,700
                                                                                             * 4,600
                                                       0.

                                                                                    -@o

                                                       12,200
                                                  0 15,800
                                 00               *    3,600                                               ST. LAWRENCE

                               LAKE
                                                                              64,700
                           ONTARIO                   JEFFERSON            [3 5,000

                                                                                  V

                                                                                                                      LEGEND

                                                                                                        4      STATE FOREST LAND
                                                             SCALE IN MILES                             0      STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND

                                                                        15   20
                                                         0                                                     STATE PARK LAND

                         FIGURE 17-18 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.3 as of 1970

                  54 Appendix 17

                  feeding. These shore areas are also some of the     TABLE 17-30 Great Lakes and Connecting
                  most important waterfowl hunting areas. The         Waterways Shoal Acreages (1970)1
                  Great Lakes and connecting waterways have
                                                                                                         Important to
                  a total of 610,150 acres of shoal areas, of which                             Total       Fish and
                  491,156 acres are considered important to             Zone by State           Shoal       Wildlife
                  wildlife (Table 17-30).
                    Shoreline shoals and wetlands are influ-            St. Lawrence River     17,939         17,939
                  enced by the fluctuating water levels of the           New York
                  Great Lakes. With a steep gradient relatively         Lake Ontario
                  few acres of shoreline may be affected, but a          New York              28,290         14,290
                  fluctuation of as little as six inches may affect     Niagara River
                  thousands of acres of wetlands where the gra-          New York               2,420           2,420
                  dient is low.
                   Shallow water is one of the prime require-           Lake Erie
                  ments for the production and maintenance of            New York               6,420
                  waterfowl populations as well as many other            Pennsylvania           5,970
                  forms of animal life. It is used as spawning           Ohio                  61,265
                  grounds by many Great Lakes fishes. The con-           Michigan              14,170
                  trol of water depths through the use of dikes         Total                  87,825         67,825
                  and levees with controlled outlet structures is       Detroit River
                  a major waterfowl management technique.                Michigan               4,519           4,519
                  Large acreages of these diked-off, controlled
                  wetlands have been established around the             Lake St. Clair and
                  shoreline of Saginaw Bay on Lake Michigan             St. Clair River
                  and on the western end of the shoreline of             Michigan              37,447         37,447
                  Lake Erie.                                            Lake Huron
                   Because water-level fluctuations bring                Michigan             160,945         140,945
                  about changes in aquatic plant communities,           Lake Michigan
                  control over these fluctuations is necessary to        Michigan             107,234
                  maintain optimum conditions for wildlife over          Wisconsin             63,388
                  an extended period of time. It is probably im-         Illinois               2,710
                  possible to regulate the Lakes'water levels to         Indiana                2,100
                  assure ideal conditions for waterfowl and fur-        Total                 77-5,432        140,432
                  bearers, but if the levels could be regulated
                  within specified limits, successful long-term         St. Marys River
                  control over marsh water levels through erec-          Michigan              34,040         34,040
                  tion of structures separating the marshes             Lake Superior
                  from the Lakes is possible.                            Michigan              37,266
                                                                         Wisconsin             19,708
                                                                         Minnesota              4,325
                  2.2.2.4 Waterfowl Use Patterns                        Total                  61,299         31,299
                   Although the Great Lak      .es Basin cannot         BASIN TOTAL           610,156         491,156
                  compare in importance to the prairie-pothole          1Shoal acreages include all    Great Lakes
                  country of the Dakotas and the western prov-          waters six feet and under in depth
                  inces of Canada for waterfowl production,
                  the Basin may be of greater importance to
                  waterfowl than is generally acknowledged. It        figures as follows: diving ducks, Figure 17-19;
                  is an important link in waterfowl migration         dabbling ducks, Figure 17-20; Canada geese,
                  between Canada and the southern United              Figure 17-21; and Blue-Snow geese, Figure
                  States. At least three million waterfowl mi-        17-22.
                  grate into or through the Basin annually. Div-        National wildlife refuges play an important
                  ers and some dabblers (puddle ducks) mi-            role in providing feeding and resting habitat
                  grate from west to east across the Great Lakes      to these migrating waterfowl. These refuges
                  Region, while the rest of the dabblers and the      are discussed in Subsection 2.2.2.5.
                  majority of geese move in a north-south pat-          The role of the Great Lakes Basin in the
                  tern across the Basin. The migration patterns       production of waterfowl is also important.
                  of four categories of waterfowl are shown in        Both the Great Lakes coastal marshes and the

                                                                                      Present Status of Wildlife 55

                   inland wetlands furnish significant amounts         larger interior marshes. The sandhill crane
                   of nesting habitat, as well as migration resting    has established a breeding population in the
                   areas. Figures 17-23 through 17-27 show the         Grand River basin.
                   coastal zone and inland areas of greatest           The open waters of Saginaw Bay are used
                   value to waterfowl. Some of these production,       extensively by all forms of migrating water-
                   migration, and wintering areas are listed be-       fowl, including ducks, geese, and swans. The
                   low.                                                Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                    (1) The east-central portion of Wisconsin in       manages approximately 20,000 acres of wet-
                   Planning Subarea 2.1 contains valuable wet-         lands on or near Saginaw Bay, and the Bureau
                   lands along the Fox and Wolf Rivers, and            of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife manages
                   Lakes Winnebago, Poygan, and Butte Des              nearly 9,000 acres of wetlands in the Shiawas-
                   Morts.-The area is especially important to mi-      see National Wildlife Refuge, just south of
                   grating waterfowl, but some nesting does oc-        Saginaw Bay. Both areas are extremely im-
                   cur. The west shore of Green Bay has many           portant for migrating waterfowl, and portions
                   productive wetland areas located near the           of the areas are used for nesting and winter-
                   mouths of the Big and Little Suamico, Pen-          ing. Industrial and urban development is a
                   saukee, Oconto, and Peshtigo Rivers. The na-        continual threat to the wetlands around
                   tionally known Horicon National Wildlife Ref-       Saginaw Bay.
                   uge in east-central Wisconsin is just outside        (7) The waterways which connect Lake
                   of the planning subarea.                            Huron with Lake Erie are important to water-
                   '(2) Southeastern Wisconsin in Planning             fowl. The St. Clair River is used by migrating
                   Subarea 2.2 in the Lake Michigan. basin is an       waterfowl. Lake St. Clair is nationally known
                   important dabbler nesting area.                     for its high use by migrating waterfowl from
                    (3) The Upper Peninsula of Michigan from           both the Mississippi and Atlantic nyways and
                   Munising eastward is an important breeding          is one of the most important stops in the
                   and nesting ground for the ring-necked duck         United States for canvasbacks and redheads.
                   as well as several species of dabblers and the      The St. Clair flats is an area of open water and
                   Canada goose.                                       cattails, which in addition to migration use
                    (4) The western part of the Upper Penin-           offers excellent nesting sites for both dabbling
                   sula from Munising west has scattered but           and diving ducks. The State of Michigan and
                   significant acreages of good waterfowl pro-         the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
                   duction habitat for the same species as those       manage approximately 10,000 acres of this
                   in the eastern portion.                             wetland. The Detroit River, on which cutter
                    (5) The upper half of the Lower Peninsula          races were staged during the early 1900s, is
                   of Michigan has scattered but significant           now an important wintering area for ducks
                   acreages of good waterfowl production               because the United States side of the river no
                   habitat. One area, Grand Traverse Bay,              longer freezes. Waterfowl wintering here are
                   should be noted because of its rather unusual       under constant threat of death from these
                   populations of mute swans. The swans use this       heat- and oil-polluted waters. Pollution caused
                   area mainly as a migration stop with some           the deaths of approximately 10,000 ducks in
                   nesting and wintering on the tributary rivers       1948. Another 1,000 were killed in 1960 and
                   of the bay. The Thunder Bay area has impor-         1964. Pointe Mouillee, near the mouth of the
                   tant wetlands for waterfowl production and          Detroit River, contains a 2,600-acre wetlands
                   migration. The State of Michigan manages            area managed by the Michigan Department of
                   approximately 1,400 acres of these wetlands         Natural Resources.
                   for waterfowl use.                                   (8) The marshes in Planning Subarea 4.2 at
                    (6) The southern half of the Lower Penin-          the western end of Lake Erie are well known
                   sula has some of the best waterfowl pro-            for their excellent waterfowl hunting. This
                   duction areas in Michigan. The Grand River          marsh area, extending from Sandusky to To-
                   basin in Planning Subarea 2.3 and the area          ledo, Ohio, contains approximately 30,000
                   inland from Saginaw Bay in Planning Sub-            acres. State and Federal ownership approxi-
                   area3.2 are outstanding waterfowl production        mates 13,000 acres of these wetlands and pri-
                   zones. Wood ducks and mallards nest                 vate duck clubs control several thousand addi-
                   throughout this zone. The giant Canada              tional acres. These marshes offer excellent
                   goose, Branta canadensis maxima, nests gen-         resting areas for migrating waterfowl and pro-
                   erally throughout this region and winters           vide nesting areas for giant Canada geese,
                   here in significant numbers. The blue-winged        mallards, black ducks, blue-winged teal, wood
                   teal nests in the coastal marshes and the                                       (continued on page 66)

                                                                                                                                                 LEGEND DIVING DUCK
                                                                      ............
                                                                           ............                                                                  ESTIMATED NUM
                                                                                                                                                        US ING A CORRI D

                                                                                      .. .........

                               MINNESOTA
                                                                                                                                                                        251,000
                                                                                                                                                                         76,000

                                                                                                                ..........
                                                                                                                                                         M3              26,000
                                   Duluth                                                          N-
                                                                                                                          ...........
                                                                                                                                                                         STATUTE @ULES
                                                                                                                            NrA 10
                                                                                                                                                                        =:Z  @40w
                                                                            Mic

                                                                       ch
                                                                                                                                            ...........

                                                                                                                                                              ...........

                                                                                                                        LAKE    UR
                                                                    SIN

                                                                                                               . .............   ... .........

                                                                                                                                                 ...... ...       ...
                                                                                                                                     ................. ..  I ...
                                                                                                                .......              ...                .......
                                                                                                                                                    ... ....  ...........

                                             ...........

                                                                  . ..........
                                                                                                                                                               NEW YO K
                                                            ILI'

                                                                                                                                                                             *w

                                                                      Chic V
                                                                                                 MKHPGAN
                                                              ILLINOIS

                                                                                    I N D I A N A                             0 H

                    FIGURE17-19 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Diving Ducks (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl Migrati

                                                                                                          LEGEND DABBLING DUCKS
                                                                                                                ESTIMATED NUMBER
                                                                                                                USING A CORRIDOR-
                                                             ID
                         V-
                                                                                               s
                  MINNESOTA    OiA                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                                             101,000
                                              LAKE SUPERIOR                                                                  31,000- K

                     Duluth
                                                                                          ONTARIO                         2@   STATUTE MILES

                                                     MICH[ A

                                                                                                 2,                                      "Z

                                                                           C,

                                        WISCONSI                                        LAKE@IJRON

                                                                          HIGAN

                                                                                                                         Buffalo

                                                                                                                       NEW    YON

                                                                                                                                 k- wa

                                          ILLI
                                                                                                            3k

                                                            IN DIAN

                FIGURE17-20 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Dabbling Ducks (Adapted from Bellerose WaterfowlMigrat

                                                                                                      LEGEND CANADA GEESE
                                                                                                            EST IMATED NUMBER
                                                                                                            USING A CORRI DOP:

                                                                                                                          75 100 - 150

                               tA
                 MINNESOTA                                                                                                25, IOC - 75
                                                      ERIOR
                                            L
                                                                                                                           5,100        25

                                                                                         tA

                                                                                        KE _VIN IN

                                               SIN

                                                                      muCHIGAN

                                                                                            X

                                                                                      f

                                                                       .11 1 OkN @tCHIGA@
                                                                                                                                m
                                                                       INOIANA                                          z
                                            ILLINOIS

                                                                                             0 H 10
                                                                  I  ",A    z1x
                    FIGURE17-21 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Canada Geese (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl Mi

                                                                                                                                                  LEGEND: BLUE AND SNOW

                                                                                                                                                                               HEAVY DEI",
                                  IS I-                                                                                                                                        LIGHTER D

                       MINNESOTA           rA     zz

                                                              LAKE           RIOR

                                                                                                                                ARIO                                          STATUTE MILES
                                                                                                                                                                       20  0      40 60   80 100
                           NI                                             ICHI
                          F%@co

                                                                                                  V

                                                      WISCL)                                                                       RO

                                                                                                                                                     .... .......

                                                                                                       iIGAN                                                              ONTARIO
                                                                                                                                                                   LAKE   CA ADA

                                                                Q                                                                                           N-
                                                                                                                                                             R-,

                                                      WIS                                                                                                           NEW YORK
                                                                                                                                                                                   NEW YORK
                                                                                                                                                           L  - - - - - - --

                                                                                                            M
                                                                                                             101tGAN
                                                                                               I      NA     b-H-TO            e7
                                                                Is
                                                                                                                                                   O@y
                                                                            z

                                                                                  IN D I A N A         z                        0 H 1 0
                                                                                                       so
                                                                                                       z

                    FIGURE 17-22 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Blue and Snow Geese (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl
                    1968)

                                MINN-TA                            CANADA

                                                                                                                               Migration and/or wintering
                                                                      _7

                                                     2                          1 1 YORI
                                                                                                                               Nesting ond migration

                                                    @..D-A

                                                       VICINITY MAP
                                                           OFTHE
                                         DRAINAGE    BASINS OF THE GREAT LAKES
                                                                                                                                                                                   R                    0
                                                                                                                                         0         N          T          A

                        M

                                                             MINNESOTA

                                                                                                                                  1.2

                                                                                                                                M I C H I G A N
                                                                        WISCONSIN

                                                                                                                                              SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                                                                     =17--p=4
                                                                                                                                          0   10 20 30 4U 50

                                                                                                                            Present Status of Wildlife 61

                                                                                                                                                        CAN-
                                                                        Migration and/or wintering

                                                                                                                                 .-..N
                                                                        Nesting and migration                                                                 5
                                                                                                                                                                   N-ORK

                                                                                                                                      .,L.No.                 N"L,-"

                                                                                                                                              VICINITY MAP

                                                                                          ...... .....

                                                                                                             2.4

                                              C 0 N S I N

                                                                                           M I C H I G A N

                                                                        LLJ

                                                                                                            2.3

                                            2.2

                                             ILLINOIS

                                                                                                                           oHlo

                     FIGURE 17-24 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2

                      62 Appendix 17

                                                                                                                                          1-GRK

                                                                                                                       'r-A   o-

                                                                                                                         VICINITY MAP

                                                                         0    N     T   A    R     1  0

                                                                                         0

                                                                                                             %

                                                                                                   00
                                               3.1                   L   A,   K E

                                               MICHIGAN         H U        0     0 N

                                                                              SIS

                                                                                                                  Migration ond orwintering

                                                                                                                  Nesting and migration
                                                                                                                                 CM-

                    FIGURE 17-25 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3

                                                                    s

                                                                                                                0 N T -A R 1          0
                                                                              4.1

                                                                        MICHIGAN
                  m                                                                                                                                     NEW YORK
                                                                                           ..........
                                                                                                                                                      4.4

                                                                                     . ...........

                                                                                                                                          PENNSYLVANIA

                                                                                      ............

                                                         @.o
                                                          -           4.2                                      _Z3
                                                         518
                                                                                      0 H    1  0

                                                                                                                                                   MIMNE-

                                                                                                                                                                 2
                                                                                                               ........      Migration and orwintering

                                                                                                                             Nesting and migration
                                                                                                                                                                  vicl

                       64 Appendix 17

                                                                                                               (D

                                                                                                     w1wokv,
                                                                                                                             5
                                                                                                               2                 NEI YORI

                                                                                                         111.1o's

                                                                                                                VICINITY MAP

                                                         0 N T A R 1 0
                                                                                                       5.3

                                                           CA1-

                                                L A K E         ONTARIO

                                                                                       5.2

                                                                                    Y 0 R K

                                                      5.1

                                                                                                           Migration and or wintering

                                                                                                           Nesting and migration

                      FIGURE 17-27 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5

                                            1

                                                                                                                   NATIONAL    WILDLIFE REFUGE

                                                                                                                               1. HURON IS.
                                                                                                                               2. HORICON
                                                                                                                               3. GRAVEL IS.
                                                                                                                               4. GREEN BAY IS.
                00                                                                                                             5. SENEY
                                                                                                                               6. MICHIGAN IS
                                                                                                                               7. SHIAWASSEE
                                                                                                                               8LAKE ST. CLAIR
                                                                                                                               9WYANDOTTE
                     MINNESOTA                                                                                                 10 CEDAR POINT
                                                                                                                               11 OTTAWA
                                                   LAKE    SUPERIOR                                                            12 WEST SISTER ISLAND
                                                                                                                               13 IROQUOIS
                                                                                                                               14 MONTEZUMA

                                                                                                  ONTARIO                                sl-U ."Ls
                                                                                                                                    x   0    40 bO A(

                                                           MICHIGAN

                                                                                             bc@

                                                                   4

                                              WISCONSIN                                          LAKE@URON

                                                            B.y

                an
                IT                                                /                                                                     ONTARI
                m                                                   T         MICHIGAN                                           J,AKE  SA '@Dl
                                                      2                                                                                  SIAT

                                                                                                                                  NEW YORK
                                               ILLINOIS                                                                                           @ORK
                                                                                               9                      f,                     NEW -
                                                                                                                   Y.       L

                                                                              mICHIGAN ICHICA
                                                                                              D  12
                                                ILLINOIS                      INDIANA                                 z

                                                             giz
                                                             315
                                                                   I N D I A N A                      0 H 10
                                                                                   zig

                   66 Appendix 17

                   ducks, and pintails. The open waters of west-         waterfowl and vary in size from the two-acre
                   ern Lake Erie, especially around the islands,         Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge to the
                   provide resting areas for ducks and geese dur-        95,500-acre Seney National Wildlife Refuge.
                   ing spring and fall migrations.                       Most of these refuges are also used as breed-
                     (9) In the Pennsylvania portion of Plan-            ing and nesting areas for some waterfowl and
                   ning Subarea 4.4, Presque Isle is the only area       many other species of wildlife, including fur-
                   that has significant waterfowl use.                   bearers, songbirds, forest and farm game, and
                     (10) The eastern end of Lake Erie in New            reptiles and amphibians. Refuges are not only
                   York in Planning Subarea 4.4 (including the           important to animals, but also provide protec-
                   Niagara River) is an important concentration          tion for many types of plant life.
                   area for spring and fall migrations of ducks,           Recreational use of these refuges is not lim-
                   geese, and whistling swans. The Niagara               ited to nonconsumptive use (nature study,
                   River has become noted recently as a winter-          photography, picnicking, etc.), but includes
                   ing area for canvasbacks and scaup.                   consumptive use (fishing and hunting) on cer-
                     (11) The 19,000-acre State and Federally            tain refuges in designated areas at specific
                   developed area    'on the Niagara-Orleans-            times. Many refuges have visitor-interpretive
                   Genesee County borders, in Planning Sub-              centers for the general public, and many pro-
                   areas 4.4 and 5.1is a stopping-off place for as       vide self-guiding automobile tours and walk-
                   many as 100,000 Canada geese during spring            ing trails. Most recreational visits to these ref-
                   migration. Many ducks and some geese also             uges are for the purpose of observing wildlife.
                   breed in this wetland complex.                        Visitations usually peak during the spring and
                     (12) One area of valuable New York wet-             fall migration periods. Some refuges receive
                   lands is the Finger Lakes region, Planning            most of their visitations during the summer
                   Subarea 5.2. Small marshes around and be-             months by families on vacation.
                   tween the lakes offer valuable nesting                  National wildlife refuges in the Great
                   habitat for waterfowl. The Montezuma Na-              Lakes Basin are listed in Table 17-31. These
                   tional Wildlife Refuge, a 6,000-acre wildlife         refuges are located on the primary migration
                   area located at the north end of Cayuga Lake,         routes and are situated in 9 of the 15 Great
                   is used by thousands of ducks and geese dur-          Lakes Basin planning subareas.
                   ing migration and some use the refuge for               Horicon National Wildlife Refuge is located
                   nesting.                                              outside of the Great Lakes drainage basin but
                     (13) Another area of high waterfowl value           is partially in Planning Subarea 2.1. This ref-
                   in New York includes the lowlands and                 uge is noted for its fall and spring concentra-
                   marshes along the eastern end of Lake On-             tions of migrating waterfowl, when as many as
                   tario and the St. Lawrence River in Planning          150,000 geese may be present at one time. Two
                   Subareas 5.2 and 5.3. This area is important          small refuges, Gravel Island and Green Bay,
                   both for the harvest and production of many           are administered from Horicon and are used
                   species of dabbling and diving ducks. A sig-          by herons, gulls, Caspian terns, and water-
                   nificant acreage of undeveloped, privately            fowl.
                   owned wetlands with a high wildlife en-                 Seney National Wildlife Refuge, located in
                   hancement potential and a potential for public        the Great Manistique Swamp in Michigan's
                   acquisition exist along the St. Lawrence Plain.       Upper Peninsula, is the Basin's largest ref-
                                                                         uge. Huron National Wildlife Refuge, which
                                                                         is administered from Seney, consists of five
                   2.2.2.5 National Wildlife Refuges                     islands along the south shore of Lake Superior
                                                                         in Marquette County. These five islands are
                     In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt set            being considered for wilderness status.
                   aside Pelican Island on the east coast of             Species found on these islands include cor-
                   Florida to protect a nesting colony of pelicans       morants, gulls, terns, and waterfowl.
                   and herons. This was the first national                 Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, noted
                   wildlife refuge in a system that now includes         for its high numbers of whistling swans, is
                   330 refuges totaling 30 million acres. The            located approximately 30 miles south of
                   Great Lakes Basin contains approximately              Saginaw Bay. Shiawassee also administers
                   139,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuge             Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, a 304-
                   lands managed primarily for waterfowl (Fig-           acre island and water area in the Detroit
                   ure 17-28).                                           River, which is used extensively by migrating
                     Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin are man-           diving ducks. Michigan Islands National
                   aged basically as stopover areas for migrating        Wildlife Refuge, consisting of three islands in

                                                                                                 Present Status of Wildlife 67

                    TABLE 17-31 Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges

                                                                                                            Acres of Habitat
                                                                                                               Open
                    PSA        Refuge               Location                   Primary Use           Upland    Water    Marsh    Total
                    1.2    Huron             Marquette, Mich.           Cormorants, gulls, terns     ------  ------   ------        147
                    2.1    Horicon           Fond du lac, Dodge, Wis.   Waterfowl                     7,165    7,325    6,346    20,836
                    2.1    Gravel Island     Door, Wis.                 Herons, gulls,               ------  ------   ------         29
                           Green Bay                                    Caspian terns
                    2.4    Seney             Schoolcraft, Mich.         Waterfowl                    27,327    7,243  60,885     95,455
                    2.4    Michigan Island   Charlevoix, Mich.          Herons, gulls,  terns        ------  ------   ------        363
                    3.1                      Alpena, Mich.
                    3.2    Shiawassee        Saginaw, Mich.             Waterfowl                     7,486      192    1,179    8,857
                    4.1    Lake St. Clair    St. Clair, Mich.           Waterfowl                    ------  ------   ------     4,200
                    4.1    Wyandotte         Wayne, Mich.               Diving ducks                 ------  ------   ------        304
                    4.2    Cedar Point       Lucas, Ohio                Waterfowl                       100      445    1,700    2,245
                    4.2    Ottawa            Lucas, Ottawa, Ohio        Waterfowl                     2,403      540    2@426    5,369
                    4.2    West Sister Is.   Ottawa, Ohio               Heron rookery                ------  ------   ------         82
                    5.1    Iroquois          Genesee, Orleans, N.Y.     Waterfowl                     3,649  ------     7,134    10,783
                    5.2    Montezuma         Seneca, N.Y.               Waterfowl                       702  ------     5,340    6,042

                    TABLE 17-32        National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin-Waterfowl and Public Use
                    (1970)

                                                     Waterfowl Use Days                                 Public Use Days
                                                                 Whistling                                          Non-
                    Refuge             Ducks         Geese         Swans          Coots     Hunting Fishing      Consump.        Total
                    Horicon           1,238,755    12,121,201        6,875     1,033,550     2,745      6,375    289,392       298,512
                    Seney              293,735         204,963          84            615    5,569      7,995      77,686        91,249
                    Shiawassee       5,523,735      3,311,203      74,466         69,818     9,623      -----      15,811        25,434
                    Cedar Point        736,016          26,532     11,634         201,497    -----      -----    -------       -------
                    Ottawa            4,708,222     1,183,380      16,224         535,064    -----      -----    -------         3,642
                    Iroquois          1,069,268        915,343         851        31,394     -----      -----    -------       177,636
                    Montezuma         2,326,788     1,939,803          330        239,377    -----      -----    -------         41,000
                    1No data are available for      the following areas: Huron, Gravel       Island, Green Bay, Michigan Islands,
                     Lake St. Clair, Wyandotte, and West Sister Island

                    Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, is adminis-                  are primary migration stops for waterfowl in
                    tered from Shiawassee and is used by herons,               the Atlantic flyway. Montezuma, located in
                    gulls, and terns. A large area in Lake St. Clair,          the Finger Lakes region, receives more
                    consisting of 4,200 acres of shallow water and             waterfowl-use days, but Iroquois, northeast of
                    marsh habitat, serves as a refuge and is posted            Buffalo, provides more people-use days (Table
                    during the waterfowl season to provide rest-               17-32).
                    ing and feeding areas for large concentrations
                    of canvasbacks, redheads, scaup, and black
                    ducks. This area is also administered from                 2.2.2.6 Status of Wetlands
                    Shiawassee.
                      Some of the best remaining waterfowl                        Wetlands are the single most important
                    habitat in the Lake Erie marshes is included               type of wildlife habitat in the Great Lakes Ba-
                    in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge. Ot-                sin. Their preservation is important for two
                    tawa, containing more than 5,000 acres, also               reasons: first, they are considered to be the
                    administers the 2,245-acre Cedar Point Na-                 most productive of all types of wildlife habitat;
                    tional Wildlife Refuge and the West Sister Is-             and second, they are the most vulnerable to
                    land National Wildlife Refuge. West Sister Is-             the urban growth since they can be drained,
                    land supports a large blackcrowned night                   diked, filled, or dredged and converted to other
                    heron rookery and is being considered for wil-             types of land or water use. Natural causes are
                    derness status.                                            also responsible for degradation and loss of
                      Iroquois and Montezuma National Wildlife                 wetlands. Erosion by wind and water has
                    Refuges, located in the Lake Ontario basin,                caused great changes in Great Lakes coastal

                           68 Appendix 17

                           TABLE 17-33 Acres of Great Lakes Basin Coastal Wetlands of Significant Value to Fish And
                           Wildlife (1970)

                           PSA                  Reach and State                   Acres             PSA                 Reach and State                    Acres

                                                  Lake Ontario                                                           Lake Huron (continued)
                           4.4    Niagara River outlet to Orleans-Monroe            None            3.2   Sanganing River to Linwood--Mich.                4,885
                                   county line--N.Y.                                                      Kawkawlin River outlet--Mich.                      170
                           5.1    Orleans-Monroe County line to Rochester         2,890                   Bay City to Point Aux Barques--Kich.
                                   --N.Y.                                                                 Point Aux Barques to Port Hope--Mich.              225
                                                                                                          Hardwood Point to Harbor Beach--Mich.              440
                           5.2    Monroe-Wayne County line to Sterling            2,670                   Harbor Beach to Forestville--Mich.                 110
                                   Creek outlet--N.Y.                                                     Total                                           34,475
                                  South Pond and Deer  Creek Marsh to            10,635             4.1   Forestville to Port Huron--Mich.                  None
                                   Sandy Creek outlet--N.Y.
                                  Total                                          13,305                   TOTAL--Lake Huron                               49,190
                           5.3    Stony Creek outlet to Wilson Bay--N.Y.          4,311                                  Lake Superior
                                  Black River Bay to Wilson Bay--N.Y.             2,100
                                  Total                                           6,411             1.1   North Shore--Minn.                                None
                                  TOTAL--Lake Ontario                            20,506                   Superior to west boundary of Red Cliff           2,430
                                                                                                           Indian Reservation--Wis.
                                                  Lake Michigan                                           West boundary of Red Cliff Indian Reser-        11,820
                                                                                                           vation to Mich. State Line--Wis.
                           2.1    Menominee County Line to Menominee--Mich.          622                  Total                                           14,i-5-0
                                  Marinette to Suamico--Wis.                      8,350             1.2   Copper Harbor to Point Abbaye--Mich.             1,255
                                  Suamico to Point Sable--Wis.                    4,380
                                  Total                                          13,352                   Keeweenaw Waterway--Mich.                        2,730
                                                                                                          Point Abbaye to Au Train River--Mich.              550
                           2.2    Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana                      None                  Au Train River to Whitefish Point--Mich.         1.265
                           2.3    South Haven to Muskegon--Mich.                  2,827                   Total                                            5,800
                           2.4    Muskegon to Ludington--Mich.                    2,827                   TOTAL--Lake Superior                            20,050
                                  Ludington to Empire--Mich.                      3,370                                  Lake Erie
                                  Empire to Mackinac Bridge--Mich.                   715
                                  Mackinac Bridge to Peninsula Point--Mich.       3,390             4.1   Huron River to Ottawa River--Mich.              11,025
                                  Peninsula Point to Escanaba--Mich.              3,210             4.2   Ottawa River to Marblehead--Ohio                12,305
                                  Escanaba to Menominee County Line--Mich.           622                  Sandusky Bay--Ohio                              10,385
                                  Total                                          14,134                   Total                                           22,690
                                  TOTAL--Lake Michigan                           30,313             4.3   Erie-Lorain County  Line to Penn.                 None
                                                  Lake Huron                                               State Line--Ohio
                           3.1    St. Ignace to Detour--Mich.                     5,195             4.4   Presque Isle--Penn.                                960
                                                                                                          Penn.-N.Y. line to Niagara River--N.Y.            None
                                  Mackinac Bridge to Stoneport--Mich.                955                  Total                                              960
                                  Stoneport to Point Au Sable--Mich.              1,685
                                  Au Gres River outlet--Mich.                        940                  TOTAL--Lake Erie                                34,675
                                  Point Au Gres to Sanganing River--Mich.         5,9
                                  Total                                          14,715                   TOTAL--GREAT LAKES                             154,734

                           marshlands. This loss and degradation of wet-                       the 1953-54 studies would be nearly impossi-
                           lands is critical in many sections of the United                    ble.
                           States.                                                                Losses have been significant in many parts
                              In 1953 and 1954, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife                     of the Basin. The western Lake Erie marshes
                           Service, working in cooperation with various                        of Ohio and Michigan and the connecting
                           State fish and game agencies, conducted a                           waterway and associated shoals and marshes
                           nationwide inventory of wetlands. This sur-                         between Lake Erie and Lake Huron have been
                           vey has been followed by various individual                         especially hard-hit in recent years. Within the
                           State wetlands appraisals. Because of varia-                        last ten years thousands of acres of prime wet-
                           tions in the coverages and time periods of                          lands in the northern part of Lake St. Clair
                           these later studies, no uniform data are avail-                     have been lost to Venetian-type housing de-
                           able on which to base an up-to-date assess-                         velopment. Further south in the vicinity of
                           ment of wetlands losses for the entire Great                        Monroe, Michigan, hundreds of acres of prime
                           Lakes Region. There was, however, 'a deter-                         wetlands have been used as sanitary fill areas
                           mination of the acres of coastal wetlands in                        by the City of Detroit and slated for industrial
                           the Great Lakes as of 1970 (Table 17-33), de-                       development.
                           veloped by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and                           The existing 30,000 acres of wetlands in
                           Wildlife as part of its activities for the Inter-                   Planning Subarea 4.2 in Ohio are all that re-
                           national Joint Commission's Great Lakes                             main of the original 100,000-odd acres of Lake
                           studies. However, to correlate these data with                      Erie marshes. Representative of these rem-

                                                                                          Present Status of Wildlife 69

                                                              '*A,

                                                                             Aulk_

                                                                                       Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
                   FIGURE 17-29 Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge. Maumee Bay, top background; Lake Erie,
                   right.

                   nant Lake Erie marshes in this planning               cases is beyond the financial capability of local
                   subarea are the wetlands of the Cedar Point           and State governments. In the case of the
                   National Wildlife Refuge, shown in an aerial          Pointe Mouillee area, it is possible that this
                   photograph taken in October 1966 (Figure              barrier beach can be at least partially restored
                   17-29).                                               during the nearby Trenton channel commer-
                     Wetlands loss or change due to natural              cial navigation project of the U.S. Army Corps
                   causes, such as erosion by wind and water, is         of Engineers. Rock taken from the channel
                   dramatically illustrated by three aerial              could be placed in offshore dikes at Pointe
                   photos of the Pointe Mouillee area taken in           Mouillee. If this measure were successful in
                   1937, 1957, 1970 (Figures 17-30, 17-31 and 17-        providing barrier-beach protection, approxi-
                   32). A storm from the southeast in 1952 with          mately 2,700 acres of shoals and marshes could
                   the highest water on record did the greatest          be managed and eventually stabilized.
                   damage, breaking the barrier beach on the               Further east in the New York portion of the
                   east side of the wetlands and eroding marsh-          Basin, wetlands are generally scattered and
                   lands behind the beach. By 1957 this erosion          in short supply. In several places pressure for
                   had proceeded to the extent shown in Figure           more recreation areas has resulted in wet-
                   17-31.                                                lands being dredged or filled by various levels
                     The restoration and then preservation of            of government to provide additional park-
                   this barrier beach, as well as others in the          lands and facilities such as boat channels,
                   Great Lakes, is fundamental to the perpetua-          marinas, boat ramps, roads, building sites,
                   tion of thousands of acres of coastal marshes.        and golf courses. Two examples of these
                   Restoration is a costly process and in most           trade-offs of wetlands to other recreational in-

                     70 Appendix 17

                                                                              'X

                               Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources  Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                     FIGURE 17-30 Pointe Mouillee State Game                         FIGURE 17-32 Pointe Mouillee State Game
                     Area Before Break in Barrier Beach, 1937                        Area, Loss of Marshlands, 1970

                                         _V,
                                                                                     New York State biologists describe Round
                                           5-                                        Pond as follows:

                                                                                       Round Pond is the most easterly unit of a once-
                                                                                       contiguous high-value wetland situated along the
                                                                                       south shore of Lake Ontario, starting at Rochester
                                                                                       and stretching westward. All of the various units
                                                                                       have been critically affected through commercial,
                                                                                       industrial, and housing development. Fish and wild-
                                                                                       life productivity of desirable species has been reduced
                                                                                       from an extreme high to a moderate level through
                                                                                       pollution, loss of littoral zone through filling, and
                                                                                       high human disturbance factors. Albeit Round
                                                                                       Pond with reference to its location in a highly popu-
                                                                                       lated area has considerable value as open space, for
                                                                                       educational demonstrative purposes, and possibly
                                                                                       an outdoor laboratory for ecological studies.
                                                                                       The Fish and Wildlife Division of the New
                                                                                     York State Department of Environmental
                               CIourtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Conservation as the result of these devas-
                     FIGURE 17-31 Pointe Mouillee State Game                         tating effects of man's activities has comple-
                     Area After Break in Barrier Beach, Loss of                      ted studies of wetlands in three regions in the
                     Marshlands, 1957                                                Lake Ontario basin as follows:
                                                                                       (1) Lake Ontario coastal wetlands and
                                                                                     Finger Lakes wetlands in Planning Subareas
                     terests are illustrated by recent aerial photos                 5.1 and 5.2 from the Niagara River eastward to
                     of construction of a marina and boat channel                    Cayuga County
                     (Figure 17-33) and filling wetlands to make a                     (2) Erie and Oswego Canal wetland units in
                     golf course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in                       Planning Subarea 5.2
                     Monroe County (Figure 17-34), both in Plan-                       (3) wetlands of eastern Lake Ontario and
                     ning Subarea 5.1. Industry and commerce also                    the St. Lawrence River from Oswego County
                     I                        viol

                     take their toll of wetlands as illustrated by an                in Planning Subarea 5.2 north and east along
                     aerial photo of industrial development at                       the coast and down the St. Lawrence River
                     Round Pond, Monroe County just west of                          Plain in St. Lawrence County in Planning
                     Rochester (Figure 17-35), and one of fill for                   Subarea 5.3
                     shipping and docking facilities engulfing a                       These wetlands were classified for their fish
                     marsh at Buffalo (Figure 17-36). The former is                  and wildlife habitat value as high, medium, or
                     in Planning Subarea 5.1 and the latter in 4.4.                  low. In addition each wetland surveyed was

                                                                                                                               Present Status of Wildlife 71

                                                                           7
                                                                                                                                               4:1

                                                                                                                            E vt_@

                          Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation        Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
                          FIGURE 17-33 Marina and Boat Channel                                          FIGURE 17-35 Industrial Development
                          Construction Destroy Wetlands in Western                                      Threatens Round Pond, an Important Coastal
                          New York                                                                      Wetland West of Rochester, New York

                                                                                                                       7--

                           Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation       Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
                          FIGURE 17-34 Wetlands Being Filled to                                         FIGURE 17_36 Fill for Shipping and Docking
                          Make Golf Course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in                                Facilities Engulfing Marsh at Buffalo, New
                          Monroe County, New York                                                       York

                          assigned a destruction vulnerability classifi-                                  Two units have been selected at random to
                          cation:                                                                       illustrate the type of information these three
                             (1) Class 1-an area which is in immediate                                  studies contain; the State's comments are
                          danger of being destroyed within the next five                                quoted directly from its report. The two units
                          years                                                                         are Canoga Marsh (Figure 17-37) on Cayuga
                             (2) Class 2-an area that could be de-                                      Lake in the Finger Lakes region and Sodus
                          stroyed in the foreseeable future                                             Bay Marsh (Figure 17-38) on the Lake Ontario
                             (3) Class 3-an area that is safe from de-                                  coast in Wayne County, both marshes in Plan-
                          struction due to its ownership, isolation loca-                               ning Subarea 5.2.
                          tion, or other factors                                                          The New York State Study describes the
                             Nine units totaling 2,801 acres of wetlands                                Canoga Marsh on Cayuga Lake as follows:
                          were surveyed in study 1, 23 units totaling                                     Location: Map Reference U.S.G.S. Union
                          5,378 acres of wetlands in study 2, and 53 units                              Spring, 1:24,000 quad. Town of Fayette,
                          totaling 9,918 acres of wetlands in study 3.                                  County of Seneca. Acreage, 180-+. Cover type

                   72 Appendix 17

                                                                                                        4--
                                                                                                       A@_

                  MEW-
                               'ot
                                                                                                       K

                                                  04"!

                                                                                                  4
                  Pr

                   Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
                  FIGURE 17-37 Canoga Marsh on Cayuga                   FIGURE 17-38 Sodus Bay Marsh on Lake On-
                  Lake                                                  tario

                  composition, marsh, 90%; open marsh, 8%;              cation, high. Destruction Vulnerability Class
                  woody swamp, 2%. Fish and Wildlife Value              1.
                  Classification, high. Destruction Vulnerabil-           Remarks: This is a key marsh area in the
                  ity Class 2.                                          Wayne County Wetlands complex. All of the
                    Remarks: This wetland unit has already              surrounding uplands have been acquired
                  suffered from landfill activities in the vicinity     under the Recreational Bond Act Program
                  of Canoga Island. The area which has high fish        and are under the administration of the De-
                  and wildlife values, is used extensively by           partment of Environmental Conservation. To
                  fishermen and hunters. Man's activities to            complete control and permit initiation of de-
                  date have not materially affected the pro-            velopment and management activities, the
                  ductive nature of the marsh insofar as water-         unallocated underwater lands should be
                  fowl, aquatic furbearers, marsh birds, and fish       placed under the Department of Environmen-
                  are concerned. Trends for recreational de-            tal Conservation, the agency having respon-
                  velopments along all of the Finger Lakes will         sibilities for management of the fish and wild-
                  ultimately result in destruction of Canoga            life resources.
                  Marsh if it is not dedicated as an important            Enhancement Possibilities: Manipulation of
                  ecological area and placed under jurisdiction         aquatic vegetation by various management
                  of the Department of Environmental Conser-            techniques.
                  vation.
                    Enhancement Possibilities: The productive
                  nature of the area could be improved by more          2.3 Use of Wildlife Resources and Trends
                  favorable regulation of lake levels, and inter-
                  spersion of aquatic vegetation through exca-
                  vation of potholes and level ditching.                2.3.1 Species Utilization
                    The New York State Study describes Sodus
                  Bay Marsh on Lake Ontario as follows:                   Although the percentage of the populace
                    Location: Map Reference U.S.G.S. Sodus              buying hunting licenses has decreased in most
                  Point, 1:24,000 quad. Town of Huron, County of        planning subareas over the last decade, the pro-
                                                                                                                    p  IR@

                  Wayne. Acreage, 240-t. Cover type composi-            jected sales of hunting licenses are increasing
                  tion, marsh, 60%; open marsh, 35%; woody              (Table 17-34). This upward trend is based on
                  swamp, 5%. Fish and Wildlife Value Classifi-          the projection that the population is increas-

                                                                                                Present Status of Wildlife 73

                    TABLE17-34 Total Hunters by Target Year in                TABLE 17-35 Great Lakes Basin Projected
                    the Great Lakes Basin (in thousands)                      Net Demands       on Wildlife Habitat by Non-
                                                                              Consumptive       Users by Target Years (in
                           Base Year              Target Years 2              thousands)'
                    PSA        1970         1980        2000        2020
                    1.1         81.0        87.0        92.0        97.0      PSA               1980          2000          2020
                    1.2         54.1        55.8        55.8        57.9      1.1               26.0          27.0          32.0
                    2.1        224.1       235.2       270.2       315.2      1.2               15.0            7.2         27.9
                    2.2        384.1       670.9       821.6      1,009.2
                    2.3        337.0       410.0       486.0       570.0      2.1               330.0        632.7         896.5
                    2.4        129.0       139.2       154.5       175.2      2.2            2,507.4       3,754.0      4,946.1
                    3.1         61.5        65.1        71.9        80.5      2.3               504.5        753.6         966.4
                    3.2        199.7       241.1       285.0       335.3      2.4               202.3        332.4         514.7
                    4.1        337.5       469.9       577.8       720.2      3.1               16.1          66.5         132.1
                    4.2        165.0       225.6       260.8       298.3      3.2               396.6        786.3      1,203.7
                    4.3        134.0       198.0       241.0       294.0
                    4.4        153.3       190.1       206.9       218.0      4.1            1,596.4       2,474.2      3,539.0
                    5.1         74.9        92.7       109.1       125.3      4.2               581.1        921.8      1,273.5
                    5.2        153.5       179.6       211.9       246.7      4.3               896.7      1,420.6      2,035.1
                    5.3         35.6        41.3        44.0        47.8      4.4               169.2        262.3         331.0
                    Total     2,524.3     3,301.5     2,888.5     4,590.6     5.1               83.8         161.2         240.7
                    1Includes resident   and non-resident licensed            5.2               138.3        293.8         461.1
                     hunters and unlicensed hunters.                          5.3               23.2          36.3          53.6
                    2Includes resident and non-resident licensed              Total          7,486.6      11,929.9      16,653.4
                     hunters, unlicensed hunters, and latent demand           'Net demand is measured in thousands of man-days. Net demand represents
                     hunters.                                                 the unsatisfied demand, which is the amount that the desire to do something
                                                                              exceeds the opportunity necessary to meet this desire.

                    ing faster than the decline in hunting license            information on the 1965 Basin furbearer har-
                    sales. A decreasing participation rate was                vest.
                    used for the successive target years to reflect
                    the expected decline in the quality of the hunt-
                    ing experience. However, nonconsumptive                   2.4 Existing Wildlife Problems
                    (non-hunter) use of wildlife and wildlife lands
                    will increase more rapidly than hunter use
                    and will compensate for decreases in hunting              2.4.1 Basinwide Problems
                    where they occur. Table 17-35, for example
                    reveals that the desire of the non-hunter to               A description of wildlife-related problems is
                    enjoy wildlife will exceed the opportunity to do          essentially a description of the environmental
                    so by nearly 5 million man-days in Planning               status of the Basin. Wildlife has been accu-
                    Subarea 2.2 by 2020.                                      rately described as a barometer of the quality
                       Harvest is a function of game population               of the environment. If the quality of the envi-
                    density, habitat quality, and hunter access. In           ronment is low, the diversity of wildlife species
                    northern wilderness areas total kill is lower             will be low and populations unstable. If en-
                    for game animals than in more southern areas              vironmental quality is high and habitat is
                    because there are often fewer animals and be-             plentiful, nearly all habitat will be occupied.
                    cause it is more difficult for the hunter to              by healthy populations of a wide variety of
                    reach them. Kill is also lower in areas with              species.
                    high percentages of posted land and in ag-                  The Great Lakes Basin, because of its ex-
                    ricultural areas where habitat value has been             tensive latitudinal and longitudinal range,
                    lowered by clean farming practices and poor               encompasses a diversity of wildlife habitat
                    land management. Harvest data are provided                and weather conditions and, therefore has a
                    in Tables 17-36 through 17-43.                            variety of wildlife problems. The single most
                       The value of the furbearer harvest in the              important Basinwide wildlife problem is the
                    eight Great Lakes States in 1965 was over two             loss of habitat. A total of 5,099,000 acres in the
                    million dollars. Table 17-44 presents detailed            Great Lakes Basin will be lost over the 50-year

                   74 Appendix 17

                   TABLE 17-36 Pennsylvania Game Harvest                TABLE 17-39 Ohio Estimated Game Harvest
                   (1970)1                                              (1970)1

                                                Planning Subarea                                      Planning Subarea
                   Species                          4.4                 Species                       4.2           4.3

                   Deer                               710               Ducks                         72,577      36,075
                   Turkey                               75              Pheasant                      93,000      46,000
                   Ducks                            7,950               Cottontail Rabbit             498,0002    168,000
                   Geese                              175               Hungarian Partridge           -------           0
                   Cottontail Rabbit                20,000              Squirrel                      200,000     165,000
                   Pheasant                         6,600               Fox                           4,2002      2,065 2
                   Ruffed Grouse                    2,000               Quail                         -------     -------
                   Squirrel                         2,000               Deer                             206         312
                   Woodcock                         3,500               Badger                           3              1
                   Mourning Dove                    4,700               Beaver                           0           175
                   Muskrat                          30,000              Mink                          1,839          308
                   Beaver                             215               Muskrat                       200,416     59,065
                   Raccoon                          5,500               Opposum                       2,420          899
                   Woodchuck                        14,000              Raccoon                       48,701      20,877
                                                                        Skunk                            52             15
                   All are estimates except deer, turkey, and           Weasel                           38             34
                   beaver, wHich are actual harvest figures.            1All harvest data are estimates except beaver
                                                                        and deer which are actual harvest. Other fur-
                                                                        bearer harvest data are based on fur buyer
                                                                        annual reports.
                                                                        2Number harvested was insignificant.
                   TABLE 17-37 Indiana Estimated Game Har-
                   vest (1966)

                                              Planning Subarea
                   Species                 2.2      2.3       4.2       TABLE 17-40 Minnesota Estimated Game
                   Waterfowl               2,5001   15,0001   1,0001    Harvest (1968-1970)
                   Squirrel               50,000    75,000  10,000                                    Planning Subarea
                   Rabbit                 75,000    60,000  20,000      Species                            1.1
                   Quail                  30,000    20,000   8,000
                   Pheasant                5,000    7,000     2,000     Deer                             31,130
                   Woodcock                1,0002     5002  ------2     Ducks                            32,400
                   Deer                      200      760       160     Ruffed Grouse                    23,330
                   11970
                   21969

                                                                        TABLE 17-41 Wisconsin Estimated Game
                                                                        Harvest (1967-1968)

                                                                                                      Planning Subarea
                   TABLE 17-38 Illinois Estimated Game Har-             Species                  1.1       2.1      2.2
                   vest(1968-1969)                                      Coot                    7,000    82,000   21,000
                                                Planning Subarea        Duck                  26,000     265,000  79,000
                   Species                          2.2                 Geese                     500    8,000       800
                                                                        Pheasant                      0  128,000  95,000
                   Dove                             82,000              Hungarian Partridge           0  18,000   8,000
                   Squirrel                         35,000              Ruffed Grouse         45,000     136,000  2,000
                   Pheasant                       125,000               Woodcock                1,500    26,000   5,000
                   Quail                            18,000              Snowshoe Rabbit       13,000          0         0
                   Rabbit                         152,000               Cottontail Rabbit             0  207,000  125,000
                   Raccoon                          22,000              Squirrel              12,000     242,000  90,000
                   Hungarian Partridge              2,000               Raccoon                   200    39,000   12,000
                   Fox                              9,000               Deer                    9,123    39,912      782
                   Woodcock                         1,500               Bear                      186      171          0

                                                                                      Present Status of Wildlife 75

                  TABLE 17-42 Michigan Estimated Game Harvest (1969)

                                                                    Planning Subarea
                  Small Game               1.2       2.1           2.3        2.4       3.1          3.2         4.1

                  Pheasant                    0     4,000     224,000      13,000      4,000     127,000       51,000
                  Ruffed Grouse         46,000     15,000        9,000     107,000    61,000      61,000       6,000
                  Woodcock                4,500     4,000       15,000     74,000     30,000      21,000           700
                  Ducks                 27,000     11,000       80,000     107,000    27,000     133,000     149,000
                  Geese                   5,000         500     10,000     15,000      1,000      15,000       3,500
                  Coots                      600        600      6,000       9,000     1,200      21,000       21,000
                  Cottontail Rabbit       9,000     9,000     320,000      91,000     46,000     183,000     439,000
                  Snowshoe Rabbit       47,000     23,000          200     60,000     23,000        5,000            0
                  Squirrel              14,500      7,000     254,000      182,000    15,000     145,000     109,000
                  Raccoon                    300        300   152,000      32,000         700     34,000     118,000

                                      Upper Peninsula      Upper k Lower Peninsula Lower         !I Lower Peninsula
                  Big Game        (PSA 1.2, 2.1, & 2.4) (PSA 2.4, 3.1, & 3.2)                (PSA 2.3 &   4.1)

                  Deer                       20,893                   71,368                        17,192
                  Bear                         840                 No season                    No  season

                  TABLE 17-43 New York Game Harvest (1960-1968)1

                                                                                 Planning Subarea
                  Species                                             4.4           5.1          5.2              5.3

                  Pheasant (1963-64)                                83,000        64,000      86,000           11,000
                  Woodcock (1960-61)                                10,000          7,000     15,000             2,000
                  Snowshoe Hare (1961-62)                        No Season    No  Season      29,000           76,000
                  Cottontail.Rabbit (1963-64)                      107,000        93,000     270,000           47,000
                  Ducks & Coots (1967-68)                           19,000        23,000      66,000           29,000
                  Geese & Brant (1964-65)                               600         3,000       8,000            1,500
                  Ruffed Grouse (1967-68)                           33,000        27,000      60,000           32,000
                  Squirrel (1965-66)                                98,000        74,000     159,000           26,000
                  Deer                                                6,000         8,000     11,000             8,000
                  1Latest figures available by species.

                  study period (Table 17-45). Much of this acre-      increasing demands for sewage treatment,
                  age will be fertile lands in flood plains and       water supply, industrial expansion, hospitals,
                  peripheral to cities, inland and estuarine wet-     schools, and airports.
                  lands, and other valuable habitat. Degrada-           Secondary effects of land use changes in-
                  tion of remaining habitat is an inseparable
                  part of the former problem and is nearly as         clude the intensification of agricultural activ-
                  serious. In either case, a change in land use is    ity on presently cultivated lands. Agricultural
                  usually at fault although all types of environ-     land is important wildlife habitat, but as more
                  mental pollution also degrade wildlife habitat.     clean farming is instituted, the wildlife value
                    The expected loss of wildlife habitat due to      of agricultural land diminishes. The resulting
                  land-use change is largely a result of human        fewer acres of idle land, woodland, fencerows,
                  population expansion, with attendant housing        and field borders support less wildlife.
                  developments, road construction, power lines,         Other land use changes which have serious
                  power plants, landfill for waste disposal, and      impact on wildlife include strip mining, rural

                    76 Appendix 17

                    TABLE 17-44 Great Lakes Basin Fur Catch (1965)

                                             Average                                                  Average
                                           Unit Value    Total Value                                Unit Value    Total Value
                    Species     Catch      (dollars)       (dollars)       Species      Catch       (dollars)       (dollars)

                    Minnesota--10% of State Total                          Michigan--100% of   State Total
                    Beaver        1,550        9.00          13,950        Beaver       16,800         16.00          26,880
                    Bobcat             5      17.00              85        Coyote        3,290          3.00           9,870
                    Coyote           30        7.00             210        Fox          29,300          6.00         175,800
                    Fox           1,450        6.00           8,700        Mink         11,700          7.50          87,750
                    Lynx             25       20.00             500        Muskrat     177,000          2.00         354,000
                    Mink          6,320       12.00          74,740        Otter            825        25.00          20,625
                    Muskrat     72,730         1.25          90,900        Raccoon     214,800          3.00         644,400
                    Otter            40       20.00             800        Weasel        2,400           .75           1,800
                    Raccoon     10,000         3.50          35,000                    465,115                     1,321,125
                    Skunk           140        1.00             140
                    Weasel          240         .50             120        Ohio--25% of State   Total
                                92,530                       225,142       Beaver             60        9.00             540
                    Wisconsin--30% of State Total                          Fox           1,290          2.00           2,580
                                                                           Mink          1,840          8.00          14,720
                    Beaver        2,700        9.00          24,300        Muskrat     104,650          1.25         156,810
                    Fox           3,600        6.00          21,600        Opossum       2,440           .30             732
                    Mink          7,500       12.00          90,000        Raccoon,     35,900          1.50          48,850
                    Muskrat     110,000        1.25          137,500       Skunk            170          .60             102
                    Opossum         200         .25              50        Weasel      -    310          .80             248
                    Otter           200       20.00           4,000                    146,660                       224,582
                    Raccoon     18,000         3.00          54,000                     1
                    Skunk           100        1.00             100        Pennsylvania
                                142,300                      331,500       Beaver           215         9.00           1,935
                    Indiana--5% of State Total                             Muskrat      30,000          1.25          37,500
                                                                           Raccoon       5,500          1.50           8,250
                    Beaver           15        9.00             135                     35,715                        47,685
                    Fox           1,500        2.00           3,000        New York--50% of State Total
                    Mink            450        8.00           3,600
                    Muskrat       9,300        1.25          14,000        Fisher           181        12.00           2,172
                    Opossum       1,450         .30             435        Otter            159        24.00           3,816
                    Raccoon       5,550        1.50           8,325                         340                        5,988
                    Skunk            40         .60              24        Illinois
                    Weasel           15         .80              12
                                18,320                       29,531        No data
                    1Percent of State total unknown

                    residence construction, filling and draining of        owners would not have had the means to un-
                    wetlands, and water development projects.              dertake drainage on their own. Practices such
                    Attrition of wetland acreage and degradation           as these, which result in bringing more land
                    continue to be a problem in spite of the recent        into crop production and more intensive use of
                    public awareness of the value of these lands.          existing cropland, seem questionable in view
                    This problem arises from conflicts over                of the Federal efforts to regulate crop
                    economic values, such as whether it is more            surpluses through cropland retirement pro-
                    expedient to destroy a marsh by drainage or            grams.
                    by use as a land fill site rather than to use it for     Stream channelization for flood control and
                    waterfowl production and general aesthetics.           agricultural benefit conflicts seriously in
                    Marsh destruction often accompanies Feder-             nearly every case with wildlife values. It is
                    al, State, or local dredging projects in harbors       particularly bad in areas where clean farming
                    and rivers due to the need for spoil disposal.         practices are used, because stream bottom
                     In some cases channelization of streams               habitat which often is the best remaining
                    makes drainage of wet areas and type II wet-           cover is destroyed. Flood control could be best
                    lands possible where prior to the project land-        served in most cases by attempting to hold

                                                                                                      Present Status of Wildlife 77

                      TABLE 1745 Percent of Great Lakes Basin                       vast expanses of forest, heavy snowfall, and
                      Habitat Base Lost to Urban Development                        low human population density. Wildlife man-
                                Resource Base in Acres           Loss               agement problems are important here, but
                      PSA       1966-67         2020           Acres  Percent       some serious problems are appearing due to
                      1.1       9,189,000    9,165,600       23,400       .25       human activity. Degradation and loss of
                      1.2       6,304,000    6,299,800         4,200      .07       habitat are occurring from surface mining op-
                      2.1       9,546,700    9,427,200      119,500     1.25        erations and associated facilities. The ex-
                      2.2       4,001,600    2,309,500     1,692,100    42.29       pected increase in acres devoted to this prac-
                      2.3       8,136,900    7,675,500      461,400     5.67        tice will eventually result in a significant por-
                      2.4       7,679,400    7,602,200       77,200     1.01        tion of the planning subarea being devoted to
                      3.1       3,838,200    3,805,400       32,800       .85       this single-purpose use. There is a serious con-
                      3.2       4,035,100    3,855,000      180,100     4.46        flict because the area, due to its high environ-
                      4.1       3,221,000    2,233,100      987,900     30.67       mental quality, is much more suited to outdoor
                      4.2       5,751,600    5,480,500      271,100     4.71        recreational use. The economic benefits of this
                      4.3       1,699,600    1,080,800      618,800     36.41
                      4.4       2,584,900    2,353,800      231,100     8.94        use are traded for economic benefits derived
                      5.1       2,187,600    2,065,500      122,100     5.58        from mining, which may preclude the area's
                      5.2       5,176,700    4,915,400      261,300     5.05        returning to recreational use at a later date.
                      5.3       3,239.70     3,223,800       15,900       .49         The long-term trend in big-game popula-
                      TOTAL    76,592,000    71,493,000    5,099,000    6.66        tions is downward, due primarily to the effects
                                                                                    of natural succession away from a young,
                                                                                    uneven-aged, mixed hardwood-conifer forest
                      water   on the land through         land treatment            toward the even-aged homogeneous spruce-fir
                      practices rather than letting it run off faster.              climax forest. Timber harvest activity and
                      Moreover the long-range detrimental impact                    wildlife management programs tend to arrest
                      of stream channelization projects on wildlife                 this trend and may create the variety of vege-
                      values cannot be adequately considered in                     tation necessary to sustain suitable game
                      conventional benefit/cost analyses. Methods                   populations. All of the big game in the area
                      must be developed to allow such intangible                    (white-tailed deer, moose, black bear, and
                      values to successfully compete with other land                timber wolf), do best when the forest is broken
                      uses.                                                         up into a mosaic of stands of different age and
                         A problem having a serious impact on all                   species composition. The carrying capacity of
                      planning taking place in the Great Lakes                      the habitat is sustained for deer and moose
                      Basin is the lack of adequate funding to State                populations, and wolf populations are thus
                      agencies which are being asked to carry out                   kept healthier, too.
                      much of the work.                                               Habitat conditions for ruffed grouse, snow-
                         Hunter access to wildlife lands is a major                 shoe hare, and woodcock have deteriorated for
                      problem in all but the northern planning sub-                 the same reasons as big game. However, the
                      areas, which have adequate public land. Ae-                   trend toward a climax spruce-fir forest results
                      cess is becoming more restricted in New York,                 in improved habitat for spruce grouse.
                      Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, south-                 Habitat for all wildlife species can be improved
                      ern Michigan and southern Wisconsin. As the                   by forestry and wildlife management prac-
                      population densities of these areas increase,                 tices that create diversity of habitat types.
                      so do problems resulting from public use and                    Waterfowl populations are limited in spite of
                      over-use of private land. In the face of increas-             the abundance of water in the planning sub-
                      ing demand for the opportunity to enjoy                       area. Low fertility of soil and water limits the
                      wildlife, the trend is toward complete restric-               production of waterfowl food. The most favor-
                      tion of consumptive and nonconsumptive                        able habitat for waterfowl consists of small
                      wildlife use to limited areas of public land.                 flows, beaver ponds, and lake bays.
                                                                                      Planning Subarea 1.1 is noted for heavy
                                                                                    snowfalls. Annual accumulated depths are up
                      2.4.2 Wildlife Problems in Each Planning                      to 80 inches or more in some areas. This snow
                              Subarea                                               causes severe deer management problems.
                                                                                    During times of deep snow, deer concentrate
                                                                                    in "yards" thereby putting undue stress on
                      2.4.2.1 Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and                   the food supply of that area. Deer losses occur
                                Wisconsin                                           directly due to malnutrition and indirectly
                                                                                    due to reduced reproductive capability of the
                         Planning Subarea 1.1 is characterized by                   herd in future years.

                  78 Appendix 17

                    Populations of white-tailed deer and ruffed        2.4.2.2 Planning Subarea 2.1, Wisconsin
                  grouse, the major game species, are probably
                  underharvested in the remote northern                   Population growth, hunting pressure from
                  reaches of the planning subarea because of           the Milwaukee-Chicago area, and a reduction
                  limited access by public roads. On the               in the resource base underlie the problems in
                  other hand, shore areas of Lake Superior close       Planning Subarea 2.1. Projected figures indi-
                  to public roads are heavily hunted. Snow is          cate the population will double by year 2020 (to
                  seldom a contributing factor to the underhar-        1.7 million) and the resource base will be re-
                  vest because the hunting season is scheduled         duced by 125,000 acres. The population in ad-
                  before winter.                                       jacent Planning Subarea 2.2 (Milwaukee-
                    The largest remaining concentration of             Chicago) is expected to double, to a total of 17.4
                  timber wolves in the United States, with the         million.
                  exception of Alaska, is found in the Minnesota          Loss of wildlife habitat from changing land
                  portion of Planning Subarea 1.1. Although the        use is as much a problem in this planning sub-
                  State of Minnesota does not consider the wolf        area as it is elsewhere, except that perhaps
                  an endangered species (population is cur-            the value of the habitat is a little higher here.
                  rently placed at 750 animals), the U.S. Bureau       Types III, IV, and V (high waterfowl value) wet-
                  of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife officially re-       lands are found in this part of the Great Lakes
                  gards this animal (eastern timber wolf) as rare      Basin. Types II and VI wetlands provide winter
                  and endangered. Wolf numbers are limited di-         cover for ring-necked pheasants and act as
                  rectly by availability of their principal prey,      alternative cover to offset nest losses suffered
                  deer, and thus indirectly by the carrying            in Wisconsin's abundant hay fields. Agricul-
                  capacity of deer habitat. The U.S. Forest Ser-       tural practices and the demand for rural home
                  vice believes that the high demand for wolves        sites are having an adverse effect on the qual-
                  as trophies, pelts, pups, exhibits, and scientific   ity of wildlife habitat in general, with the
                  purposes has resulted in an increasing               drainage of wetlands having the most serious
                  number of persons searching for timber wolf          impact.
                  dens each spring, thereby creating a problem            In the 1960s small watershed activities in-
                  on those portions of National Forest lands           creased in Planning Subarea 2.1, which in-
                  where access is not limited.                         cludes wetland areas of value to wildlife. One
                    The moose population has been declining            of the watershed projects contains 12,391
                  slightly in recent years, apparently from some       acres of wetlands. Preliminary project pro-
                  winter losses and lowered productivity caused        posals could directly or indirectly result in the
                  by habitat limitations. The population is at or      drainage of 7,700 acres of these wetlands. This
                  above the carrying capacity of the range, due        watershed lies approximately 10 miles north
                  to changes in forest succession.                     of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and
                    A conflict between forest management and           surrounds the southern tip of Lake Win-
                  wildlife management is avoided when cutting          nebago, the largest lake in Wisconsin. Pot-
                  operations in aspen and other hardwood               holes and marshes in this area of Wisconsin
                  stands attempt to regenerate aspen rather            have the highest concentrations of migratory
                  than release a thick understory of small             waterfowl in the State, and the region ranks
                  hardwood trees. The maintenance of aspen             among the highest in number of breeding
                  and its associated undergrowth as a compo-           pairs of ducks. These wetlands also provide
                  nent of forest habitat is necessary if white-        excellent furbearer habitat. The extensive
                  tailed deer and ruffed grouse are to be per-         fresh meadows and brush marshes contribute
                  petuated.                                            substantially to the fact that Fond du Lac
                    Snowmobiles, although a boon to the winter         County regularly ranks among the top ten
                  recreation industry in this planning subarea,        Wisconsin counties in the harvest of ring-
                  constitute a potentially serious threat to           necked pheasants. This danger of habitat loss
                  wildlife. These vehicles are capable of making       due to channelization is not limited to this
                  their own roads, and irresponsible individuals       area and may occur in nearly every watershed
                  have used them for such illegal purposes as          in southern Wisconsin.
                  harassing wildlife in remote areas. However,            The snowmobile boom of the past ten years
                  Minnesota has specific regulations about the         has caused serious conflicts of use among the
                  use of snowmobiles in the taking of either           sportsman, general recreationist, and rural
                  game or non-game species and in the opera-           resident. Stricter regulation of snowmobiles is
                  tion of snowmobiles on public land.                  needed to insure that each interest can pursue

                                                                                        Present Status of Wildlife 79

                   its activity without interference from               preservation under State acquisition pro-
                   another. Snowmobile problems are especially          grams becomes more costly.
                   acute on those public lands where access is not       The northern forested area of Planning
                   restricted.                                          Subarea 2.1 is suffering from a loss of white-
                    The Wisconsin Forest Crop Law, Woodland             tailed deer and ruffed grouse habitat because
                   Tax Laws, and County Forest Laws enable the          of forest succession. When the larger aspen
                   State to manage private lands for forestry           and other hardwoods are cut, the other hard-
                   purposes, while making them available to the         woods will regenerate unless management
                   public for hunting. The total acreage involved       steps are taken to perpetuate the aspen. The
                   is approximately 675,000 acres in Planning           maintenance of aspen and its associated
                   Subarea 2.1. This acreage of private land            undergrowth is necessary if deer and grouse
                   represents nearly one-third of the total acre-       populations are to be perpetuated.
                   age of land open to the public for hunting. If        Destruction of waterfowl habitat by carp
                   present public access arrangements are lost,         poses problems on major streams and lakes.
                   many acres of habitat would be closed to the         The State of Wisconsin has a rough fish re-
                   public. In addition to private lands open to         moval program and is working on methods to
                   hunting, there are 63 State-owned or leased          make it more effective and economical.
                   public hunting areas and tracts of State              The Fox-Wolf River basins project in east-
                   forest, national forest, county park, and State      central Wisconsin proposed by the Corps of
                   park lands, which contribute to the total 10.15      Engineers may help solve a problem in one of
                   acres per hunter in Planning Subarea 2.1.            the State's most valuable wildlife areas. The
                    Pollution from agricultural pesticides will         major problem is that marshes in the area are
                   continue to be a problem in sections of Plan-        deteriorating due to flooding and erosion. A
                   ning Subarea 2.1, especially in the Door             cooperative effort is needed to provide flood
                   Peninsula where spraying of fruit trees is ex-       control, bank stabilization, improved naviga-
                   tensive. Thermal pollution poses a potential         tion routes, and preservation or enhancement
                   problem in that waterfowl may be enticed to          of fish and wildlife resources in portions of the
                   winter if there is open water. This unnatural        basin.
                   situation may increase waterfowl losses. Arti-
                   ficial feeding could be required if the water
                   becomes ice-covered during periods of exces-         2.4.2.3 Planning Subarea 2.2, Wisconsin,
                   sive cold weather or facility shut-down. Artifi-             Illinois, and Indiana
                   cial feeding is usually considered as a "last
                   resort" management practice.                          This is the most densely populated planning
                    Activities of large canning companies and           subarea in the Great Lakes Basin. A total of
                   muck farmers cause problems in several ways.         8,481,000 people reside in three major popula-
                   The canning companies leave large blocks of          tion centers: Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee
                   land and then clean-farm the area, removing          Wisconsin; and Gary, Indiana. The character
                   fence rows and wildlife pockets. Early plowing       of the area is predominantly suburban, with
                   (August-September) of open flatlands exposes         only three outlying counties in Wisconsin and
                   the soil to wind and water erosion throughout        two in Indiana retaining a rural character.
                   much of the year.                                    The greatest concentration of people is along
                    Muck farmers are in direct competition with         the Lake Michigan shore in a nearly unbroken
                   the State of Wisconsin for wetlands acquisi-         belt from Mequon, Wisconsin, to Michigan
                   tion and use. On several occasions muck farm-        City, Indiana.
                   ers have been able to outbid the State to ac-         The planning subarea's foremost wildlife
                   quire wetlands for farming purposes. After           problem is loss of habitat and hunting oppor-
                   these wetlands are drained, serious wind and         tunity caused by the conversion of woodlots,
                   water erosion problems can be expected.              wetlands, and farms to residential, industrial,
                     Rural residential development, both sea-           and private recreational uses. Hunting is the
                   sonal and year-round housing, reduces avail-         first casualty, due to increasing posting
                   able wildlife habitat to the extent that laws        against trespass and demands for restrictions
                   and building sites often replace undisturbed         on the use of firearms. Temporary improve-
                   woodlots. It restricts hunting opportunity           ments in wildlife habitat and small-game
                   substantially because the entire area is often       populations which occur on the fringes of sub-
                   posted. Residential development also drives          urban developments are more than offset by
                   woodlot and wetland values upward so that            permanent losses of habitat associated with

                  80 Appendix 17

                  intensive development of real estate and its         2.4.2.4 Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and
                  associated transportation systems.                           Michigan
                    Loss of wildlife habitat is also of concern to       Wildlife problems, needs, and solutions are
                  nonconsumptive wildlife interests, which are         discussed at length in Appendix K of the Com-
                  probably greater in this planning subarea            prehensive Water Resources Study of the
                  than are consumptive (hunter) interests.             Grand River Basin, Michigan, published in
                  Open space, even if only low-quality wildlife        March 1968, which covers approximately
                  habitat, will become increasingly important          one-half of Planning Subarea 2.3.
                  as the planning subarea becomes more ur-               This planning subarea has few public land-
                  banized. An open space program similar to the        use problems, because a homogeneous dis-
                  67,231 acres of forest preserves and parks in        tribution of public land already exists. The
                  northern Illinois is of exceptional importance.      Michigan portion has many State game and
                  This is particularly true in view of the plan-       wildlife areas. Game and wildlife, and rec-
                  ning subarea's expected population increase          reation lands are located in 14 of the 19 Michi-
                  and expected urban expansion, such as the            gan counties. Three of the six Indiana coun-
                  proposed Indiana Seaport at Burns Ditch,             ties have either State Fish and Game Areas or
                  which could result in the complete urbaniza-         State Parks. Furthermore, most of the areas
                  tion of Porter County.                               in both States are located close to large popu-
                                                                       lation centers.
                    The resource base of 3,626,115 acres (1970) is       Major problems in providing opportunity for
                  expected to be reduced to 1,813,270 acres by         hunters and nonconsumptive wildlife users in
                  2020. During this same period of time the            this planning subarea are related to a decreas-
                  population is expected to increase from              ing resource base. In 1960, the base included a
                  9,786,000 to 17,356,000. The rural regions of the    total of 7,693,300 acres of public and private
                  Wisconsin portion of the planning subarea are        lands. Preliminary projected resource base for
                  productive agricultural lands with less than         2020 is 7,194,050 acres, which includes only
                  15 percent tree cover. Muck farming and clean        wildlife habitat in the "other land" inventory
                  farming are contributing to the degradation of       category (excludes urban areas of 10 acres or
                  the wildlife potential of these lands. The           under). This means 500,000 acres of habitat
                  drainage activities of various public agencies       will be lost to various developments. This loss
                  are also having an adverse impact on the re-         occurs within the same time-span as an ex-
                  source base.                                         pected increase of 2,664,000 people in the area,
                    Stream channelization through small                more than twice the 1960 population. During
                  watershed development projects could be easy         this period another loss of 62,189 acres is ex-
                  to dismiss as a minimal threat to wildlife due       pected to occur as private lands now under
                  to the comparatively small acreages involved.        contract with the USDA, ASCS, for public
                  However, since the stream bottoms are impor-         hunting (Cropland Adjustment Program land)
                  tant not only as the last remaining natural          will revert to private control. This could result
                  cover, but also as potential green belts, chan-      in a critical reduction in public hunting oppor-
                  nelization will be a more serious problern in        tunity.
                  this planning subarea than in planning sub-            Rapid population increases, coupled with a
                  areas of lower population density and more           shrinking resource base, will result in greatly
                  abundant stream habitats.                            increased pressure on existing public hunting
                                                                       lands. Other complications are the increasing
                    The Lake Michigan shore also provides              difficulty of expanding public hunting lands as
                  some wildlife benefits in the form of waterfowl      land values rise, and the degradation of all
                  hunting, but public access is poor due to pri-       outdoor recreational experiences resulting
                  vate ownership of most of the shoreline. The         from crowding. Crowding and the resultant
                  acreage of public hunting lands per licensed         lowering of the quality of wildlife habitat and
                  hunter is 125. Compounding the problems of           outdoor opportunity is a problem in southern
                  lack of opportunity and loss of open space is an     Michigan public areas, due in part to the
                  increase in pollution, particularly in the           dramatic increase in use of off-road vehicles,
                  southern tip of Lake Michigan. Air and water         including four-wheel-drive vehicles, motorcy-
                  quality are so low that they sometimes consti-       cles, snowmobiles, and other special purpose
                  tute a direct hazard to the health and well-         all-terrain machines. As of 1970, no effective
                  being of fish and wildlife as well as the human      controls had been imposed on these
                  population.                                          specialized conveyances. Public hunting lands

                                                                                        Present Status of Wildlife 81

                   are subjected to heavy use by these special          significant a problem as trying to provide op-
                   vehicles, since access to private lands is lim-      portunity for waterfowl hunters and noncon-
                   ited. The noise, damage to vegetation, im-           sumptive users. Although many public lands
                   pact on wildlife, and litter from this use is on     within the planning subarea include wet-
                   the increase. Even horseback riders, when            lands, thousands of acres of high-value wet-
                   added to an already crowded scene, present a         lands are privately owned and unprotected.
                   problem in some areas.                               Wetlands within Michigan have been severely
                     Programs of stream channelization by all           damaged in the past, and future damage in
                   levels of government and by private individu-        this planning subarea is likely to be the most
                   als pose a serious conflict of interest problem,     serious in the State.
                   materially contributing to a shrinking wildlife        There is less reason to be concerned about
                   habitat base. This work often results in the         continued upland game opportunity than
                   complete destruction of the streambanks and          waterfowl opportunity. Wetlands are subject
                   stream borders. Removal of vegetation from           to conversio-n into agricultural lands as well as
                   streambanks and sides can have a disastrous          urban lands. If wetland losses continue, the
                   effect on furbearers, upland game, and non-          proportion of wetland habitat to upland
                   game populations in heavily-agriculturalized         habitat will become increasingly smaller.
                   areas where the bank vegetation is often the
                   only significant cover left over vast regions.
                     The recent expansion of the Federal in-            2.4.2.5 Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1,
                   terstate highway system, as well as construc-                Michigan
                   tion of State and local highways where stream
                   crossings are necessary, has contributed to            Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1 are
                   stream bottom destruction in the planning            characterized by large tracts of State and na-
                   subarea. Approximately 20 miles of stream            tional forest. Human population densities are
                   have been channeled at highway crossings,            low, and problems here are of resource man-
                   disturbing not only the immediate area but           agement rather than the people-related prob-
                   also the downstream ecosystem. In addition,          lems of the southern areas.
                   channel modifications completed under the              Historically, the forested areas of the Great
                   provisions of Public Law 83-566 have resulted        Lakes were burned regularly by lightning-
                   in 9.1 miles of stream channelization, 104.9         ignited fires. The arrival of white men and
                   miles proposed for channelization, and there         clear-cut logging practices increased the
                   are four projects undey consideration for.           acreage of large open areas with their early
                   channelization.                                      successional forest plant communities. The
                     Insecticide (chlorinate d-hydroc arbon) run-       openings first revegetated with brush species
                   off from orchards and nonagricultural appli-         such as viburnum and blueberry, followed by
                   cation in southern Michigan has created prob-        intolerant tree species such as aspen, jack
                   lems in marshes, as well as the more well-           pine, and scrub oak. A continual process of
                   known problems of fishery ecology, such as the       fires (later combined with logging) kept the
                   DDT build-up in coho salmon. The pesticide           forests in a state of change and provided a
                   enters the food chain through the water,             good variety of cover and food for wildlife
                   through plant life, and through small aquatic        species such as Kirtland's warbler, bobcat,
                   organisms, becoming more and more concen-            snowshoe hare, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed
                   trated in the larger organisms. Fish-eatipg          grouse, white-tailed deer, and ruffed grouse
                   birds, such as eagles, osprey, wading and            (Figures 17-39 and 17-40).
                   shore birds, have high concentrations of insec-        In recent years forest fires have been effec-
                   ticide in body tissues and are experiencing          tively controlled, and it is now unusual for
                   reproductive difficulties.                           more than a few thousand acres a year to burn
                     A lesser problem, but related to that of pro-      in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern
                   viding opportunity for increased demand, is          Lower Peninsula. In addition, forestry prac-
                   the provision for different types of hunting         tices have encouraged too great a component
                   and nonconsumptive opportunity. Presently,           of conifers. Open areas have been regularly
                   most big-game hunters travel out of the plan-        planted to pine, and forest types are being
                   ning subarea to hunt. This is due to the pres-       changed through longer harvest rotation
                   ence of large tracts of State and national           (conversion of mixed aspen and white pine to
                   forests to the north which provide better            solid stands of white pine, which provide no
                   white-tailed deer habitat than is generally          browse accessible to deer for most of the trees'
                   found in the planning subarea. This is not as        maturation). This leads to declining habitat

                  82 Appendix 17

                                A4.

                                                                   p-

                                                                                         A

                                                                                                    A@T
                                             YT 'low,

                                             T"
                                                                                 A@A:X_

                                                                               Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                  FIGURE 17-39 A Cheboygan County, Michigan, Site in 1926. Only sparse and ragged cover
                  remained in 1926 after logging and fires in 1919 and 1925. This gives fair to good wildlife habitat
                  but is of low timber value.

                  value for deer and other forest game. This           lishment and management of the wolf. If there
                  trend needs to be reversed, as these animals         is loss of livestock, it would seem expedient to
                  are decreasing in density in many areas.             simply pay the fariner for this loss to preda-
                    Off-road vehicles, particularly snowmobiles,       tors, rather than spend large sums to destroy
                  are becoming a more serious problem as their         a unique wildlife resource.
                  numbers and versatility increase. The Michi-           The bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon
                  gan Department of Natural Resources has es-          are declining over all of their southern range.
                  tablished trails and regulations governing the       There is considerable scientific evidence that
                  use of off-road vehicles on public lands, but        this decline is due to the presence of persistent
                  sheer numbers may soon overwhelm the exist-          pesticides in the food chain. These chemicals
                  ing controls.                                        are used to increase agricultural production,
                    The decline of rare and endangered species         and with the exception of DDT, their use has
                  is a problem that in some cases is very difficult    not been discontinued. Residues of DDT will
                  to remedy, since the reasons for the decline of      remain in the environment for many years.
                  these animals and birds are often tied to poli-        Other rare and endangered species of this
                  tics and economics.                                  part of the Great Lakes Basin are probably
                    The timber wolf was once a common resident         affected more by habitat loss and over-harvest
                  of the northern forests of Michigan. En-             than by pesticides. Efforts are being made to
                  croachment of civilization has been a factor in      preserve scarce habitat for the Kirtland's
                  wolf decline, but large expanses of suitable         warbler and prairie chicken. Efforts have
                  habitat still exist. The wolf was reduced by         been made to reintroduce pine marten and
                  hunting, poisoning, and trapping to protect          fisher, two species that were wiped out by
                  livestock. Today, however, for many people           over-harvest and by logging practices that re-
                  the chance to observe and photograph rare            duced habitat. The Canada lynx, also over-
                  animals like the wolf in his natural surround-       harvested, is making a comeback on its own.
                  ings is a supreme outdoor experience. Yet ig-          Less encroachment from human activity
                  norance and politics still prevent the reestab-      has occurred here than in other areas, but

                                                                                        Present Status of Wildlife 83

                                                                                  7

                                                                            A@

                                                                          A

                                                                    Z@

                                                                                   Courtesy of State of Michigan Departmnt of Conservation
                   FIGURE 17-40 ForestRegeneration on the Same Site (see Figure 17-39) Over a 41-Year Period
                   (1926-1967). In 1967, the planted pine plus natural growth of maple and other hardwoods had
                   achieved a close stand and wildlife had become sparse.

                   114,000 acres will be lost by 2020.                  year-round home of numerous aquatic and
                                                                        terrestrial fur animals, upland game, and
                                                                        white-tailed deer. Inland marshes in State
                   2.4.2.6 Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan               and Federal refuges and in private holdings
                                                                        also provide important habitat for these birds
                     Wildlife habitat in the planning subarea is        and animals.
                   diverse. It includes northern forest, active and       Although the State owns submerged land to
                   fallow farmland, and fine waterfowl marsh.           the normal highwater mark, shoreline
                   Urban areas make up a significant portion of         marshes are still subjected to degradation by
                   the area, and their associated problems have         humans. Due to the extremely gentle gradient
                   seriously degraded wildlife habitat. Changes         of the shore, a minor lowering of the water
                   in forest succession are occurring here, but         level during a dry year exposes large expanses
                   this problem is not as great as it is in the more    of marshes. Riparian shore owners can, under
                   northern Michigan planning subareas.                 permit, cut and remove marsh vegetation
                     Loss and degradation of wetland habitat            when the water level drops. This contributes
                   around Saginaw Bay is the most critical              to the decline in marsh area value. Agency
                   people-oriented wildlife resource problem.           actions causing a loss of habitat are dredging
                   Approximately 40,500 acres of fine marsh             for navigation, marina construction, and fill-
                   exist along the shores of the Bay. The Bay and       ing for garbage disposal and spoil deposition.
                   its extensive marsh complex are a nationally         Private actions such as the construction of
                   known waterfowl concentration area, provid-          small-boat channels, docks, and groins also
                   ing feeding, resting, nesting, and nursery           adversely affect wildlife resources.
                   habitat for transient and breeding ducks. This         Planning Subarea 3.2 at one time was good
                   NEW,
                                       i/

                   area is vital in the support and protection of       ring-necked pheasant habitat, but lately the
                   many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh         situation has declined. Clean farming prac-
                   birds, and passerine birds which frequent the        tices, particularly in the Thumb on the east
                   North American Continent. It is also the             side of Saginaw Bay, have hurt pheasant nest-

                 84 Appendix 17

                 ing and winter cover and reduced the pheas-         Basin. This gigantic biomass places an over-
                 ant food supply. Mercury-treated grain and          whelming strain on the area's ecosystem.
                 pesticide use will continue to have an impact       River systems, airsheds, and natural values
                 on ring-necked pheasant populations.                are seriously degraded. Wildlife problems are
                   Clean farming means many things in terms          those of survival, rapidly diminishing and de-
                 of the wildlife situation. It is a change to new    graded habitat, use conflict, and numerous
                 and bigger farm machinery; it is combination        other people-oriented problems.
                 corn picking and shelling operation; it means         The most important wildlife resource of the
                 hiore intensive row cropping; it means less         planning subarea is the western Lake Erie
                 unharvested grain and stalks left in the field;     marsh complex that stretches along the shore
                 and it means that due to the size of the plows      from the Ohio line to the lower Detroit River.
                 and harvesting equipment, fence rows and            Large marsh areas also exist in Lake St. Clair
                 field borders are being eliminated to facilitate    at the mouth of the St. Clair River. These
                 maneuvering of the larger machines. In all,         marshes, once vast and productive, have been
                 the cleaner, more efficient farming provides        reduced to small segments of their original
                 much less wildlife habitat and reduces the          size. The prevailing attitude over the years
                 winter-survival chances of game species such        has been that marshes are wastelands unfit
                 as ring-necked pheasants.                           for anything unless man interferes. Precisely
                   In addition to the degradation of the wildlife    the opposite is true from a natural viewpoint.
                 value of farmlands, losses of wildlife habitat      Marshes are the single most productive
                 are occurring from urban ex0ansion in and           wildlife habitat type and are fit for many liv-
                 around the planning subarea's major cities.         ing things as long as man does not interfere.
                 The construction of highways, subdivisions,         This fact has been recognized in Planning
                 and new utilities is taking a significant           Subarea 4.1 by only a few people, and only the
                 amount of land. The total acreage expected to       efforts of the Michigan Department of
                 be lost to these uses by 2020 is 180,000.           Natural Resources and other conservation
                   Channelization activity in Planning Sub-          agencies have protected parcels of the marsh-
                 area 3.2 is potentially more damaging than          lands.
                 elsewhere in the State due to the presence of         Inland areas are also being degraded.
                 wetlands. Species such as the woodcock will be      Stream courses are not only seriously polluted
                 hurt the most by channel and drainage ac-           but are damaged by dumping and channel
                 tivities, which dry out the soil and eliminate      modifications. Federally administered chan-
                 food sources in wet woodlands and fields. The       nel modification and local action have in-
                 clearing of stream bottoms will also reduce         creased pollution in streams such as Red Run
                 habitat for ruffed grouse.                          Drain near Mt. Clemens.
                   There are problems in the implementation            Loss and degradation of wetlands is compli-
                 of programs such as the Public Law 83-566           cated by the expected rise in real estate value
                 Small Watershed and ACP (now Rural En-              of these lands once they have been filled or
                 vironmental Assistance Program), which, if          drained. This filling has increased the value of
                 corrected, could greatly help wildlife. Federal     any surrounding marshes to a price often
                 cost-sharing programs take considerable cred-       higher than the State can afford. Even though
                 it for providing wildlife habitat enhancement       shore marshlands are invaluable to wildlife,
                 but actually do not spend enough of their           their high real estate value in Planning Sub-
                 budget on these programs to provide any tan-        area 4.1 results in a shift to State purchase of
                 gible benefits.                                     lcwer-priced, important wildlife lands else-
                                                                     where. -Consequently, industrial and private
                                                                     interests are winning the race for the acquisi-
                 2.4.2.7 Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan              tion of shore areas.
                                                                       A number of problems threaten waterfowl
                   This planning subarea has the most compli-        and habitat in the lower Detroit River, a
                 cated wildlife management problems in the           wildlife area of extreme importance. The prob-
                 entire Great Lakes Basin. The most produc-          lems include oil and other chemical pollutants
                 tive and largest expanse of marshland in the        from city and private development activity on
                 Basin is found here and is being overrun by a       Celeron Island. Both situations seriously de-
                 huge metropolitan complex. Five million             grade and jeopardize the habitat and depen-
                 people live in and around Detroit, Ann Arbor,       dent waterfowl resources. Marine facilities
                 and Pontiac, making this the second most            and expanding year-round housing on Celeron
                 densely populated planning subarea in the           Island threaten to destroy all waterfowl feed-

                                                                                           Present Status of Wildlife 85

                     ing areas on and immediately adjacent to the          amount to 1.5 cents per acre per year. Present
                     island. Oil and other pollutants kill birds out-      State programs for wildlife habitat manage-
                     right, and most chemical pollutants also kill         ment on State forests in these same planning
                     invertebrate animals, reducing diving duck            subareas are 20 times greater than the Forest
                     food supplies.                                        Service Program.
                       Celeron Island and the surrounding marsh
                     areas are the heart of the waterfowl food and
                     cover supply, providing high-quality vegeta-          2.4.2.8 Planning Subarea 4.2, Indiana and Ohio
                     ble foods such as wild celery and sago pond
                     weed. These plants constitute 50 to 60 percent          The problems of Planning Subarea 4.2 are
                     of the standing waterfowl food crop. Other            similar to those of Planning Subarea 2.3. A
                     food sources such as invertebrate animals             shrinking resource base is the most serious
                     (mollusks, etc.) are abundant and at times            problem. In this case the 1960 resource base
                     provide 20 to 50 percent of the diet of diving        was 5,777,700 acres, while the 2020 projected
                     ducks. A total of 5,000 acres of high-quality         base is 5,480,500 acres, a loss of 297,000 acres.
                     waterfowl food crops exist around Celeron Is-         The population during this period is projected
                     land. Species found here in large numbers in-         to go from 1,566,000 in 1960 to 3,116,000 in 2020.
                     clude canvasback and scaup ducks and whis-              In all, there are 13 public hunting areas to-
                     tling swans.                                          taling 19,955 acres in the Ohio portion of the
                       This habitat is utilized year-round due to an       planning subarea. These areas range in size
                     artificial situation which has been in effect         from 153 to 8,162 acres, average 1,535 acres,
                     since the thirties. Heated waters from power          and occur in 9 of the 20 counties. Eight of the
                     plants and industry have kept the lower De-           13 areas are less than 600 acres in size. This
                     troit River ice-free, and waterfowl have be-          amounts to 0.12 acres of public hunting land
                     come winter residents. Concentrations of              per hunter within the planning subarea. The
                     ducks are thus very vulnerable to the above           Statewide ratio is one acre of public land per
                     problems, particularly oil pollution, even in         hunter.
                     the winter.                                             The Ottawa and Cedar Creek National Wild-
                       The description of wildlife management              life Refuges provide significant wetland
                     problems associated with Federal programs             habitat (approximately 7,921 acres) and non-
                     providing cost-sharing and funding for                consumptive wildlife recreational opportu.ni-
                     wildlife habitat enhancement applies to most          ty. The remaining public areas that provide
                     of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.                   general outdoor recreation opportunity are
                       (1) Federally cost-shared drainage and              for the most part highly developed for inten-
                     channelization projects do not require protec-        sive use with few natural areas. Thus the pro-
                     tive measures to mitigate wildlife habitat loss-      ductivity and use of these areas for wildlife
                     es, and in many cases do not require protec-          purposes is limited.
                     tive measures needed to insure the planned              In 1962 between 54 and 67 percent of the
                     life of the installations.                            farms in the Ohio portion of the planning sub-
                       (2) Some tree planting programs are used            area were open to the public for hunting with
                     as much or more to raise funds for local or-          or without permission. Under a Division of
                     ganizations as they are to provide needed             Wildlife Cooperative Hunting Program, which
                     habitat improvement.                                  provides control of hunters on private land, a
                       (3) The influence of the State level plan-          total of 154,267 acres were available in 1970 to
                     ning committee for ACP is low because it can          the public for hunting with permission in the
                     act only in an advisory capacity. As a result,        Ohio portion of the planning subarea. Table
                     fish and wildlife interests are outnumbered           17-46 is a list of these acreages by county as of
                     and critical decisions are made without a             December 31, 1970.
                     wildlife interest vote.                                 In 1970 the USDA Cropland Adjustment
                       (4) A total of 116,551 acres are presently          Program provided public access on only 9,358
                     open to hunting under CAP agreement. The              acres of diverted cropland for hunting in the
                     1965 act that provided for these lands also           Ohio portion of this planning subarea. Only 27
                     provided for a ten-year contract which will           percent of the farmers participating in CAP
                     soon expire. Unless the legislation is renewed,       elected to participate in the public access
                     these acreages will be closed to public hunting.      phase of the program. Approximately 60 per-
                       (5) Federal budgets to provide wildlife             cent of CAP public access acres were in the
                     management practices on Federal forest                Cooperative Hunting Program.
                     lands in Planning Subareas 2.4 and 3.1                  The shrinking resource base is particularly

                  86 Appendix 17

                  TABLE17-46 Cooperative Agreements in the                 Part of Planning Subarea 4.2 contains some
                  Ohio Portion of Planning Subarea 4.2 (De-             of the finest wildlife habitat in Ohio with
                  cember 31, 1970)                                      Statewide, if not national importance. Ohio
                                                                        ranks second in the harvest of muskrats in the
                                     Number of                          United States, with 25 percent of the take com-
                       County        Agreements         Acres           ing from this planning subarea. The five Lake
                                                                        Erie shoreline counties are classified by the
                       Allen               31           2,803           U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
                       Auglaize          123           24,478           Wetlands Inventory as high-value waterfowl
                       Crawford            10           1,692           habitat. Extensive Type IV wetlands (deep
                       Defiance            86          12,175           fresh marsh) existed here at one time. A small
                       Erie                30           6,010           but significant portion of them still remain,
                       Fulton              39           4,9,69          but these remaining wetlands are still sub-
                       Hancock              8              942          jected to many kinds of degradation. Both
                       Henry                3              332          natural destruction from wave action and de-
                       Huron               44           7,398           struction from man's activities, such as filling
                       Lucas                9              734          and drainage, have contributed to the loss of
                                                                        wetlands. Many thousands of acres of Ohio
                       Mercer              43           5,612           wetlands have already been drained for ag-
                       Ottawa               1                50         ricultural, industrial, or urban home de-
                       Paulding          139           27,416           velopment in Planning Subarea 4.2 and
                       Putnam              17           1P856           elsewhere.
                       Sandusky            21           3,045
                       Seneca            203           33,970
                       Van Wert            27           31-444          2.4.2.9 Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio
                       Williams            79          12,460
                       Wood                 6              703            The most serious wildlife problem in Plan-
                       Wyandot             21           4,178           ning Subarea 4.3 is a diminishing resource
                                                                        base. This is due mostly to the presence of the
                       TOTAL             940          154,267           second largest city in the Lake Erie basin,
                                                                        Cleveland, which touches the cities of Lorain
                                                                        and Elyria in Lorain County on the west side,
                                                                        Akron and Cuyahoga Falls in Summit County
                  critical in this planning subarea due to the          on the south side, and parts of Geauga and
                  intense agricultural use. Farming activity            Lake Counties on the east side. In addition to
                  over much of the planning subarea has left            this large urban area there are many small
                  little relatively undisturbed cover, as illus-        towns, all of which contribute to the urban
                  trated in Figure 17-41. It is not uncommon to         character of the planning subarea. One county,
                  see an absence of fence rows, which are vital as      Ashtabula, still retains rural characteristics.
                  wildlife cover. The preliminary figures of the        The population of Planning Subarea 4.3 in
                  Land Use Work Group indicate that forest              1960 was 2,625,000 and is projected to increase
                  land in particular and other land (idle lands)        to 5,527,000 by 2020. The resource base is pro-
                  categories are proportionately small com-             jected to be reduced from 1,666,800 acres to
                  pared to those in other planning subareas.            1,017,500 acres during the same period. Again
                   Most present cropland is dependent upon              as in other planning subareas, when popula-
                  drainage. Tiling and drainage ditches are ex-         tion density doubles much wildlife habitat is
                  tensive. These agricultural drainage ditches,         lost.
                  which sometimes occupy former intermittent              While the 13 public hunting areas totaling
                  natural watercourses, frequently provide              10,036 acres are well-distributed, the pre-
                  habitat diversity. Many miles of agricultural         ponderance of this acreage lies east of the
                  ditches are renovated annually.                       Cleveland-Akron area. These hunting areas
                   Degradation and     destruction of stream bot-       range from 69 to 4000 acres in size and all but
                  tom habitat resulting from channelization of          three are less than 1,000 acres in size. Only
                  major natural watercourses has the most del-          0.07 acres of public hunting land per hunter
                  eterio'us effect upon wildlife, even though less      occur within the basin. The Statewide ratio is
                  miles of watercourse are affected. Figures            -one acre of public land per hunter. The small
                  17-42, 43, and 44 illustrate the impact of this       size of most public hunting areas severely
                  activity.                                             limits their ability to provide quality hunting

                                                                                                                                 Present Status of Wildlife 87

                                                                                                     I_ML-,

                                       _Z@

                                                                                                                      -vt
                                                                                                                          _7

                                                                        40,           '4,do"'

                                                                                                                                              t

                                                                                                                         Courtesy of State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources
                          FIGURE 17-41             'The Recent Shift             to   Monoculture          Throughout Extensive Portions of Planning
                          Subarea 4.2 Has Had an Adverse Effect on Wildlife.

                          FIGURE17-42 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio, Look-
                          ing Downstream From County Road 72 Bridge. Productive fish habitat (stream) and wildlife habitat
                          (woody vegetation along each bank) have been transformed to a sterile ditch.
                                                                                                                         Courtesy of State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources

                           88 Appendix 17

                                                 'AMM&
                                                                                    AdW.7
                                                                                                                                             -@7 "X.,
                                                                                                    -'*41  A   A-   i;"
                                                                                                                                                                              A          M

                                                                           &I

                                                                                                                                 Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of z5port Fisheries and Wildlife

                          FIGURE17-43 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio. (Same
                          view as Figure 17-42, four years later.) Shallow, warm water limits fish life and grassed banks are of
                          little value as wildlife habitat.

                          FIGURE17-44 Looking Across Little Auglaize (West to East) From County Road 72 Bridge. Three
                          to five acres of woods were removed during channelization. Note scraggily row of shrubs planted
                          (center of photo) to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat.
                                                                                                                                 Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

                              'v;
                           It,
                                                                 @74
                                                                                                    .-p
                                                                                  V

                                                    Flo

                                                                                  Present Status of Wildlife 89

                 opportunity for major game species. These         TABLE 17-47 Cooperative Agreements in
                 areas, along with the sizable Cleveland, Ak-      Planning Subarea 4.3 (1970)
                 ron, and Lorain Metropolitan Park Systems,
                 the Mentor Marsh Natural Area, the Kent                             Number of
                 State University natural areas system, and             County       Agreements       Acres
                 city water supply reservoirs do, however, con-         Astabula          69          10,465
                 tribute significantly to the public wildlife
                 habitat base in this highly urbanized area.            Cuyahoga            5             177
                   Hunting opportunity exists for upland game           Geauga              3             465
                 and waterfowl. The deficiency of big-game              Lake                          ------
                 hunting opportunity is remedied by the close-          Lorain            31          4,090
                 ness of more hilly and forested lands just out         Medina            37          5,512
                 of the planning subarea to the south. Use of           Portage           24          2,307
                 public lands for both consumptive and non-             Summit              6             654
                 consumptive purposes will become more in-
                 tense. Crowding and the resultant lowering of          TOTAL             175         23,670
                 the quality of the outdoor experience will
                 probably be the foremost of the foreseeable
                 problems on public lands.
                   Hunting access on private land is highly re-    high demand for nonconsumptive wildlife ex-
                 stricted in many counties in this planning        periences in the metropolitan areas of Cleve-
                 subarea. In 1962 less than 50 percent of farms    land and Akron.
                 in the planning subarea were open to,the pub-       Air pollution has an influence on noncon-
                 lic for hunting with or without permission.       sumptive wildlife values in urban areas. It
                 Under a cooperative hunting agreement be-         seems futile to plan for outdoor users when
                 tween the Division of Wildlife and private        medical experts are advising city dwellers to
                 landowners, a total of 23,670 acres were avail-   remain indoors. Habitat development is also
                 able in 1970 to the public for hunting with       restricted because of planting limitations as
                 permission. Acreage of cooperative hunting        far as 30 miles distant from industrial centers.
                 land by county is shown in Table 17-47.           Established white pine plantations are dying
                   In 1970, public access to diverted cropland     within this zone of influence, reportedly due to
                 acres under the USDA Cropland Adjustment          air pollution. The full potential of any noncon-
                 Program provided only 13,411 acres for hunt-      sumptive wildlife developments within urban
                 ing. Approximately 30 percent of the farmers      areas with air pollution problems will not be
                 in this planning subarea participating in CAP     realized until air pollution controls are more
                 elected to receive additional payments for        effective.
                 providing public access on their diverted crop-     It is anticipated that locally financed
                 land acres. Nearly 50 percent of CAP public       stream channelization will be of significance
                 access acres were also in the Cooperative         in this planning subarea in the future as a
                 Hunting Program.                                  result of private and local government action.
                   Another problem made more acute by the          The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has several
                 presence of a high-density human population       projects in the area. Most of these are naviga-
                 is water pollution. Many miles of waterways       tion projects and will probably have little ef-
                 within the Greater Cleveland-Akron area are       fect on wildlife' re sources.
                 grossly populated. This area is second only to      One project involves the construction of a
                 Detroit in its deleterious effect on the water    reservoir which does affect wildlife. The pro-
                 quality of Lake Erie. The Cuyahoga, Black,        posed Grand River reservoir pool will inundate
                 Chagrin, and Rocky Rivers are all in various      thousands of acres of wildlife habitat that will
                 stages of degradation.                            be difficult if not impossible to replace. This
                   The lower Cuyahoga River valley still has a     river valley is unique because it is a semi-
                 great deal of potential as a green belt de-       wilderness area located close to a large city.
                 velopment in conjunction with the Tinkers         The river bottom and adjacent land is high-
                 Creek Wildlife Area. The grossly polluted con-    value habitat for ruffed grouse, white-tailed
                 dition of the stream detracts from the valley,    deer, and beaver. Therefore, while the reser-
                 being a fire and health hazard. Once stringent    voir would add to fishing opportunity and
                 water-pollution controls are enforced and the     probably to the waterfowl resources and to
                 stream is rehabilitated, the development of a     general recreation potential, the irreplace-
                 green belt could meet part of the extremely       able wilderness and the deer, grouse, and

                   90 Appendix 17

                                                                                                 A
                                                                                                                        Aw
                                                                                                                        MW

                   r

                   FIGURE 17-45       Urban Encroachment-an Ever-Present Factor in Southern Great Lakes Wildlife
                   Habitat

                   beaver habitat would for all practical pur-            Lake Erie shore and the Niagara County, New
                   poses be lost..                                        York, section of Lake Ontario shore. Water
                     The potential for degradation of wildlife            pollution in the tributaries and open waters of
                   benefits by commercial navigation will be of           these sections, stemming from pesticide run-
                   concern if the Lake Erie and Ohio River Canal          off from the numerous grape orchards, organ-
                   proposed in conjunction with this project ever         ic loads from grape processing, and industrial
                   becomes a reality.                                     and municipal sewage, is therefore a serious
                                                                          problem. Added to this is poor quality water
                                                                          from sources in the western basin of Lake Erie
                   2.4.2.10 Planning Subarea 4.4, Pennsylvania            affecting eastern Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
                             and New York                                   The shoreline of Lake Erie at Erie County,
                                                                          Pennsylvania, lies on a main migration route.
                     The Cleveland, Ohio-Erie, Pennsylvania-              At one time 20,000 to 30,000 greater scaup,
                   Buffalo, New York urban belt flows along the           ringneck, and other diving ducks wintered in
                   Lake Erie shore in a band from one side of this        Erie Bay. A thermal outfall from the Erie
                   planning subarea to the other. Habitat loss is         General Electric plant keeps the water open
                   the most serious problem. An estimated                 east of the Bay and has recently also attracted
                   240,000 acres of habitat will be lost by 2020,         large winter flocks of waterfowl. Paper-
                   while human populations will increase from             mill wastes and other industrial pollutants
                   1.3 million persons to a total of 3.1 million.         have reduced the production of aquatic food
                   Increased land values, taxes, and more expen-          organisms in the littoral zone so drastically
                   sive farm operations are forcing small farmers         that the numbers of wintering ducks and mi-
                   out of business. Although the spread of ur-            grating ducks (stopping to feed) have declined
                   banization causes more idle farmland, the re-          to only a few thousand.
                   version of this land to early successional brush         The upper and lower Niagara River is
                   and small trees greatly benefits wildlife (Fig-        another important wintering area. It is a ter-
                   ure 17-45).                                            minal migration area for redheads, canvas-
                     Important waterfowl habitats exist in the            backs, and scaup (as many as 20,000 scaup
                   Erie County, Pennsylvania, section of the              have been observed). This situation is an un-

                                                                                          Present Status of Wildlife 91

                   natural one, again due to open water caused           ing and wildlife management on surrounding
                   by thermal pollution. It is very serious, be-         lands.
                   cause food and cover are poor and extreme oil           By 2020 population is projected to increase
                   pollution hazards are present. The source of          to 1,538,000 from 884,000 in 1970. Most of the
                   these problems is the Buffalo, North Tona-            increase will occur in the northern or lowland
                   wanda, Tonawanda and Niagara Falls in-                region. In all, 122,200 acres of wildlife habitat
                   dustrial complex, including a power plant at          will be lost to urbanization during the study
                   Niagara Falls that causes a fluctuation of as         period. The construction of new houses along
                   much as four feet in water levels. This de-           secondary roads forms a barrier against use of
                   grades food-producing capabilities of the river       remaining lands behind these houses.
                   and backwaters, and at the same time, induces           Another problem restricting access to wild-
                   the thermal condition. Industrial operations          life lands all over the basin is posting. This
                   also produce oil, tar, and other waste chemi-         practice causes the most restriction of access
                   cals that threaten waterfowl and other animal         to huntable wildlife lands, nearly all of which
                   life.                                                 are private. As human populations increase,
                     Industrial pollution in Dunkirk Harbor has          the incidence of nuisance trespass increases,
                   reduced its value as a waterfowl area. Steel          both from wildlife users and others. The land-
                   slag dumped into the open waters of Lake Erie         owners then post more land to attempt to re-
                   from the Lackawanna steel plants, and glue            duce their own problems of crop damage, fire,
                   and tannery wastes from factories in Tona-            fence damage, and stock losses.
                   wanda are other water quality problems af-              A use problem that goes hand in hand with
                   fecting wildlife.                                     posting is the tendency for sport groups to
                     Dredge and fill activity of the U.S. Army           reserve the right to hunt on private lands by
                   Corps of Engineers beach erosion control              direct payment to the landowner. This is a
                   project at Presque Isle Peninsula, Pennsyl-           partial solution to the restricted access prob-
                   vania, has damaged the planning subarea's             lem, but aggravates the overall problem. If
                   most unique marshland.                                well-managed hunting preserves were open to
                     Restricted access to     private lands is a         a larger segment of the hunters, the pressure
                   wildlife use problem in New York, with posted         on public areas would be reduced. However,
                   farmland common in rural areas. The situa-            hunting preserves are operated well below
                   tion is better in Pennsylvania because of a           maximum sustained yield, which further
                   good supply of public hunting land. The total         limits overall hunting opportunity. If the
                   of 119,150 acres of the State Game lands,             trend toward shooting preserves continues, as
                   Safety Program lands, and Farm Game                   much as 40 percent of the planning subarea's
                   Cooperative Program lands provided 3.7 acres          private lands will be in private preserves by
                   per resident hunter in 1968 in the Pennsyl-           the year 2020.
                   vania portion of Planning Subarea 4.4.                  Loss of wetlands is a serious problem be-
                                                                         cause this habitat is in short supply in the
                                                                         planning subarea. The losses are usually due
                   2.4.2.11 Planning Subarea 5.1, New York               to agricultural, industrial, and municipal de-
                                                                         velopments, often partially funded by gov-
                     This planning subarea is divided into three         ernmental programs. Single-purpose flood
                   physiographic region s-upland s, transition           control, navigation, and agricultural drainage
                   zone, and lowlands. The uplands or head-              programs have been responsible for wetland
                   waters region, which is forested and hilly, ex-       losses throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
                   tends into Pennsylvania. The Genesee River            Shore marshes have been damaged by naviga-
                   forms a canyon and waterfalls as it cuts              tion projects and by the usual filling for gar-
                   through the escarpment at the transition              bage and trash disposal.
                   zone. The lake plain is the predominant land            The shore and related areas of Planning
                   feature of the lowlands region, with agricul-         Subarea 5.1 have a total of 2,890 acres of
                   ture the primary activity. Urban development          marshland habitat remaining. A factor of
                   is intrudinginto the river valleys and uplands.       great concern is the plan to manipulate levels
                     Urban encroachment into valuable wildlife           and flows. An across-the-board determination
                   habitat is the most important of the lowland          of an optimum water level for the most effec-
                   problems. Land-use changes such as conver-            tive management of shoreline marshes is not
                   sion of agricultural land to residential or in-       possible. Each marsh or wetland along the
                   dustrial activities not only permanently de-          shore will require an individual biological as-
                   stroys wildlife habitat but also restricts hunt-      sessment before an optimum water level can

                   92 Appendix 17

                   be recommended. In some cases higher leve          Is   Preserve in the northern half. Here problems
                   will result in loss of wetland productivity by          are similar to forest management problems
                   inundation, while in others decreased levels            elsewhere in the Great Lakes Basin and are
                   will dry out shoreline marshes.                         more solvable than urban problems.
                     Inland marshes exist mainly along the river             The following problems are specific to Plan-
                   systems. These areas are threatened by the              ning Subarea 5.2.
                   usual flood control projects and land-use                 (1) waterfowl-wetland problems
                   changes. Shallow swamp areas are being filled                (a) Water pollution (oil and some chemi-
                   by developers for cottage sites. Coordinated            cals) causes a direct loss ofwaterfowl.
                   and carefully-planned water resource de-                     (b) Water level control is an important
                   velopment can not only expedite flood control,          consideration of both inland lakes and Lake
                   but enhance the diminishing waterfowl                   Ontario. Drastic changes of water level can be
                   habitat.                                                disastrous. Recent lower levels in Lake On-
                     Water pollution in the planning subarea has           tario are having damaging effects on the
                   so adversely affected approximately 100 miles           shoreline marshes.
                   of streams that their ability to support a                   (c) Marina developments, construction
                   fishery has been impaired. Wherever disrup-             of shoreline cottages, resorts, and road con-
                   tion or destruction of the aquatic food chain           struction where they intrude on wetlands and
                   occurs, dependent mammalian and avian                   other important wildlife habitat are a sig-
                   species are also affected. Mink, raccoon,               nificant zoning problem.
                   muskrats, shorebirds, wading birds, ducks,                   (d) Dredge and fill activity for whatever
                   and geese depend wholly or partly on aquatic            purpose is contributing heavily to loss of wet-
                   organisms for food. Reduced food supplies               lands, shallow water areas, and aesthetic val-
                   mean fewer of these animals and birds.                  ues.
                     In addition to diminished wildlife popula-                 (e) Drainage of inland wetlands for ag-
                   tions, the aesthetic qualities of the water sys-        ricultural purposes, mosquito control, etc., is a
                   tems are impaired, thereby diminishing the              serious problem.
                   ability to support nonconsumptive wildlife                   M Hunter access to wetlands and water
                   demand. This is particularly true in the lower          areas is often blocked by private ownership of
                   Genesee River.                                          peripheral lands.
                                                                                (g) The presence of lead shot in shallow
                                                                           waters is a continuing problem responsible for
                   2.4.2.12 Planning Subarea 5.2, New York                 waterfowl mortality each year.
                                                                             (2) small-game problems, farm and upland
                     Wildlife problems here are similar to those                (a) Intensive agricultural practices,
                   of Planning Subarea 5. 1. However, the Oswego           such as clean farming, row cropping, and
                   basin (Planning Subarea 5.2) has larger tracts          woodlot clearing, decrease wildlife habitat.
                   of rural land and fewer people problems. The                 (b) Posting of private lands reduces
                   planning subarea population in 1970 was                 hunter access.
                   1,385,000 and is expected to grow to 2,557,000               (c) Early-season haying operations re-
                   by 2020. During the same period 261,300 acres           sult in direct mortality of ring-necked pheas-
                   of wildlife habitat will be lost to urban               ants and cottontails and nest destruction.
                   encroachment.                                                (d) Fall plowing reduces winter cover,
                     The greatest concentration of people in this          food, and nest areas for cottontails and pheas-
                   area occurs in an urban complex strung out              ants.
                   along Interstate 90 from Rochester in Plan-                  (e) Herbicides applied to grain crops re-
                   ning Subarea 5.1 to Syracuse and Utica, both            duce weed seed production of fall and spring
                   in Planning Subarea 5.2. This urban belt also           food supplies.
                   includes the communities at the mouths of the                (f) Farmland abandonment results in
                   Finger Lakes. These lakes attract cottage and           loss of farm-game habitat.
                   summer home development, which have                          (g) Increased use of pesticides and her-
                   brought in the usual support facilities, roads,         bicides may have serious reproductive impli-
                   and utilities, making the planning subarea              cations for small game.
                   rather uniformly urbanized in the southern                 . (h) Adequate early-stage forest succes-
                   half.                                                   sional habitat must be maintained.
                     In sharp contrast to the more urban south-                 (i) Lack of interspersed conifer cover for
                   ern half of the planning subarea is the forest          snowshoe hare and ruffed grouse over much of
                   land in and around the Adirondack Forest                their range limits the population.

                                                                                       Present Status of Wildlife 93

                      (j) Woodcock habitat is decreasing due to        lem. Presently substantial wetland reduction
                  vegetational succession and reduced grazing,         is occurring at an alarming rate due to filling
                  both of which result from farmland abandon-          and dredging; agricultural drainage and
                  ment.                                                channelization; landfills; urbanization;
                      (k) Posting of private lands reduces             pollution-including over-enrichment; crea-
                  hunter access.                                       tion of impoundments-deep water or fluc-
                    (3) big-game problems                              tuating water levels; and artificial lowering of
                      (a) Winter cover in northern Herkimer            Lake Ontario water levels detrimental to
                  County has been damaged by high white-               shoreline estuaries in relation to the St.
                  tailed deer populations. Lack of conifers is also    Lawrence Seaway Development and Power
                  a factor. This part of the planning subarea has      Project water management plan.
                  the most severe winter weather conditions.               (b) Advanced vegetative succession,
                      (b) Uncontrolled and feral dogs are a fac-       coupled with selective cutting of softwood
                  tor in high winter mortality of deer, precluding     trees, has seriously reduced productive forest
                  population establishment and herd expansion          habitat in many areas.
                  in much of the planning subarea.                         (c) White-tailed deer winter concentra-
                      (c) Illegal kill, particularly in Oswego         tion areas are destroyed by timber harvest
                  and Oneida Counties along with dogs running          and the construction of impoundments. Deer
                  deer, is a limiting factor in deer populations.      are harrassed by snowmobiles.
                    (4) other problems                                     (d) Lack of logging because State con-
                      (a) Degraded water quality (particularly         stitutional constraints prevent harvest on
                  nutrient enrichment) causes early aging of           State lands within Forest Preserves results in
                  lakes and ponds and reduces wildlife value of        general deterioration of white-tailed deer
                  streams. All kinds of pollution limit the value      winter range.
                  of stream courses. Water milfoil invasion of             (e) Illegal shooting and dog predation are
                  inland lakes has resulted from excessive nut-        important limiting factors to distribution of
                  rient enrichment.                                    deer and some other species.
                      (b) Private ownership of key resource                (f) Cycles of severe winters seriously
                  areas locks the public out and prevents wise         curtail wildlife species not adapted to subarc-
                  management. There is also a problem on               tic conditions.
                  State owned lands (not under the jurisdiction            (g) Physical access for hunters in
                  of the New York Department of Environmen-            Adirondack zones are needed. Forest Pre-
                  tal Conservation, i.e., lands under water) of        serve laws prevent construction of additional
                  preserving unique fish and wildlife values.          roads. Many roads and trails are not well iden-
                      (c) Trout streams in the mountains are           tified or plowed in winter.
                  sometimes degraded by numerous beaver                    (h) There is a lack of information con-
                  dams. Concentrations of these animals in-            cerning population status of several species,
                  crease water temperature and turbidity by            including some forms considered to be en-
                  clearing trees from the banks, impounding            dangered, such as the pine marten.
                  water, and creating bottom disturbances. At              (i) Many hunters are opposed to antler-
                  the same time, beaver dams provide valuable          less deer seasons and other harvest-
                  edge effect and are attractive to waterfowl          management techniques.
                  and other wildlife.                                      (j) Some species such as beaver tend to
                                                                       cause problems wherever they occur in areas
                                                                       of intensive land use.
                  2.4.2.13 Planning Subarea 5.3, New York                  (k) Some zones have stable land-use pat-
                                                                       terns, but lack wildlife species adapted to such
                    The following problems are specific to Plan-       use.
                  ning Subarea 5.3.                                      (2) other problems
                    (1) wildlife problems                                Other problems are the same in Planning
                      (a) Damage to wetland areas is the               Subarea 5.3 as in Planning Subareas 5.2 and
                  foremost environmental preservation prob-            5.1.

                                                                      Section 3

                                        FUTURE USE OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

                       Planning for future wildlife resource use is              Great Lakes Basin consists of actual hunters
                    influenced by many factors including human                   and potential hunters. The actual hunter
                    population increases, land-use practices, in-                category consists of resident licensed hunters,
                    creased urbanization, and related socio-eco-                 non-resident hunters, and unlicensed hun-
                    nomic factors.                                               ters. Potential hunters include all hunters
                       In this study as in most comprehensive                    plus the number of latent hunters. Table 17-48
                    studies the hunter day is used as a measure of               lists the total number of hunters in the Basin
                    comparative need. In addition to the hunter                  for the years 1970, 1980, 2000, and 2020.
                    day an attempt was made to project the actual
                    number of acres of habitat needed to satisfy
                    the increase in hunting demand. The Adden-                   3.2.1.1 Licensed Resident Use
                    dum provides the rationale and methodology
                    for determining acres of habitat needed, as                   Hunting license sales, considered the best
                    well as a detailed step-by-step discussion of                index for projecting future hunting demands,
                    the methodology used to develop hunter day                   are recorded and readily available on a county
                    demands and related data. All projections                    basis. Resident hunting license sales for all
                    were made on a planning subarea basis with                   counties in a planning subarea were totaled
                    the county as the base unit.                                 to arrive at the resident licenses per capita

                    3.1 Projected Human Populations
                                                                                 TABLE 17-48 Total Hunters, Great Lakes
                       Projected population figures for the Basin                Basin (in thousands)
                    and each planning subarea were provided by                                       1          2          2            2
                    the Office of Business Economics, U.S. De-                   PSA              1970      1980       2000       2020
                    partment of Commerce, in Appendix 19,                        1.1              81.0      87.0       92.0       97.0
                    Economic and Demographic Studies (Table                      1.2              54.1      55.8       55.8       57.9
                    17-1). Present and future population figures
                    are used as a basis for projecting the future                2.1            224.1      235.2      270.2      315.2
                                                                                 2.2            384.1      670.9      821.6     1,009.2
                    demand for hunting, with per square mile and                 2.3            337.0      410.0      486.0      570.0
                    acre of habitat per capita being two of the                  2.4            129.0      139.2      154.5      175.2
                    important factors used in our projection equa-
                    tion.                                                        3.1              61.5      65.1       71.9       80.5
                                                                                 3.2            199.7      241.1      285.0      335.3

                                                                                 4.1            337.5      469.9      577.8      720.2
                    3.2   Projected Hunter Use                                   4.2            165.0      225.6      260.8      298.3
                                                                                 4.3            134.0      198.0      241.0      294.0
                       Projections of future hunter use are based                4.4            153.3      190.1      206.9      218.0
                    on certain assumptions and can be revised if                 5.1              74.9      92.7      109.1      125.3
                    future conditions show these assumptions to                  5.2            153.5      179.6      211.9      246.7
                    be misleading. Hunter use, expressed in                      5.3              35.6      41.3       44.0       47.8
                    man-days, is a function of the number of hun-                Basin Total 2,524.3      3,301.5    2,888.5    4,590.6
                    ters and the annual participation rate.

                                                                                  Includes resident and non7resident licensed
                                                                                  hunters and unlicensed hunters.
                    3.2.1 Projected Participants                                 2Includes resident and non-resident licensed
                                                                                  hunters, unlicensed hunters, and latent
                       The projected number of          hunters for the           demand hunters.

                                                                            95

                    96 Appendix 17

                    for use in the projective process. Resident              TABLE 17-49 Resident Licensed                Hunters,
                    license sales per capita were considered indic-          Great Lakes Basin (in thousands)
                    ative of the acres of potential hunting land per         PSA             1970       1980       2000       2020
                    capita. In 1960 Planning Subarea 3.1 in the
                    upper part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula                 1.1             69.0       69.0       73.0       77.0
                    had both the highest resident licensed hunter            1.2             45.2       44.1       44.1       45.8
                    per capita rate, .395, and the largest number            2.1            187.9      183.6      210.9      246.1
                    of acres of potential hunting land per capita,           2.2            327.4      425.7      521.3      640.4
                    32 acres. Conversely, Planning Subarea 2.2               2.3            291.0      317.0      376.0      441.0
                    (Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary) had only a                2.4            109.6      110.8      123.0      139.5
                    .040 resident licensed hunter per capita rate            3.1             51.7       52.7       58.1       65.1
                    and.47 acres of habitat per capita. In the Ohio          3.2            170.7      189.3      223.7      263.3
                    River Basin Comprehensive Survey it was                  4.1            289.4      324.3      398.8      497.1
                    found that the correlation coefficient (r) be-           4.2            158.0      187.3      216.5      247.7
                                                                             4.3            128.0      137.1      167.0      204.0
                    tween licensed resident hunter per capita and            4.4            129.1      132.1      143.8      151.5
                    acres of potential hunting land per capita was           5.1             64.1       66.1       77.8       89.4
                    highly significant at the 99 percent probabil-           5.2            131.3      133.5      157.6      183.4
                    ity level. Population density, also a factor in          5.3             30.2       31.4       33.5       36.3
                    projecting the number of licensed hunters for
                    the target years, was found to be highly sig-            Basin Total 2,182.6      2,404.0    2,825.1    3,327.6
                    nificant.
                     After considering several factors related to
                    projecting future use of wildlife resources,
                    population densities and acres of habitat per
                    capita were determined to be the best factors            3.2.1.2 Licensed Non-Resident Use
                    in projecting future hunting demand in most
                    planning subareas.                                          The method used in projecting non-resident
                     However, in three planning subareas with                participation was to find the 1960 ratio of
                    high population densities and low acres of               non-resident to resident hunters and apply
                    habitat per capita, it was found that better             this factor to the projected resident licensed
                    results could be obtained by using total popu-           hunters. It was assumed that no significant
                    lation and total area as the factors involved in         change would occur in this ratio during the
                    making the projections. These three are Plan-            projected years.
                    ning Subareas 2.2, 4.1, and 4.3.
                     Multiple regression equations (Introduc-
                    ti6n) were used to project the number of                 3.2.1.3 Unlicensed Use
                    licensed hunters per capita for 1960 in each
                    planning subarea. The computed 1960 licensed               Adjustments for unlicensed hunters were
                    hunter per capita figure was then adjusted as            made from statistics developed in the 1965 Na-
                    it deviated from the known 1960 licensed                 tional Survey of Fishing and Hunting and
                    hunter per capita figure. The correction factor          data received from the various State fish and
                    was derived by dividing the actual per capita            game agencies. Some unlicensed hunters were
                    figure by the computed per capita figure for             hunting in violation of existing laws requiring
                    each planning subarea. The projected per                 licenses. However, most unlicensed hunters
                    capita figure was then multiplied by this cor-           are exempted from the license requirements
                    rection factor to partially account for various          by legislation. Typical exemptions are prop-
                    unknown determinants specific to each par-               erty owners on their own land, persons under
                    ticular planning subarea. Adjustment factors             or over certain ages, disabled or active ser-
                    were not large but were thought to provide               vicemen, and so on. No significant change in
                    increased accuracy when applied to pro-                  legislation concerning exemptions is antici-
                    jections for the future.                                 pated for the target years.
                     The Addendum shows the calculation pro-
                    cedure using Planning Subarea 4.2 as an
                    example. Table 17-49 lists the total number of           3.2.1.4 Latent Demand
                    licensed hunters in the Basin for the base year
                    1970 and the projected numbers of licensed                 Latent demand is that desire to hunt inher-
                    hunters for the target years 1980, 2000, and             ent in the total population but not fulfilled
                    2020.                                                    because of lack of facilities, time, money, or for

                                                                             Future Use of Wildlife Resources 97

                  other reasons. A national survey published in       of supply and demand permits an evaluation
                  1962 probed this problem of latent demand and       of future net hunting needs or excess supply.
                  estimated that five percent of the adult popu-      To. arrive at the 1980 net demand, the 1970
                  lation (18 years and older) would like to begin     gross demand was subtracted from the 1980
                  hunting, and five percent would like to hunt        gross demand and then adjusted for acres of
                  more. In the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive         habitat lost and acres gained of intensively
                  Study, based on these national figures, the         managed hunting areas. An intensively
                  scope of coverage was expanded to make the          managed area provides higher use than an
                  factors adaptable to total population. The re-      unmanaged area. For example, if 20,000 acres
                  sults show that 1.62 percent of the total popu-     of private land were lost with a use of .20
                  lation of the Ohio basin have unfulfilled de-       man-days per acre (4,000 man-days lost), and
                  mand for hunting.                                   only 2,000 acres is gained but managed inten-
                   In this appendix, latent-demand hunters            sively with a use factor of 3.00 man-days per
                  were projected as a percent of the actual 1960      acre (6,000 man-days gained), there would be a
                  resident licensed hunters. In order to deter-       net gain of 2,000 man-days of hunting.
                  mine this percent factor, 1.62 percent of the        Net demands for 2000 and 2020 were deter-
                  total population in each planning subarea was       mined using the same method used for deter-
                  divided by the number of actual resident hunt-      mining 1980 net demands. Therefore, 2000 and
                  ers for that planning subarea. The results          2020 net demands were a function of changes
                  ranged from 5 percent to 40 percent. The same       in gross demands during the years 1980-2000
                  percent factor determined for each planning         and 2000-2020, the carry-over net demand
                  subarea was used for the target years.              from the previous target year, and the effects
                                                                      of land-use changes on opportunity and use.
                                                                      Table 17-50 shows the net demand in man-
                  3.2.2 Projected Annual Use Rates Per                days for the base year 1970 and the target
                        Participant                                   years 1980, 2000, and 2020.

                   Estimates of average annual hunter par-
                  ticipation rates were based on State data for
                  each planning subarea. The average annual           3.2.5 Planning Subareas: Hunters and Needs
                  estimated Basin participation rate for 1970
                  was 10.0 days and 8.8 days in 2020. Annual           Table 17-51 provides data on the acreages of
                  participation rates ranged from a low of 4 days     wildlife habitat required to provide hunting
                  to a high of 15 days per hunter. Participation      opportunity. Data are provided for the base
                  rates were reduced 4 percent for each target        year 1970 as well as projected data for the
                  year to account for increasing population           target years 1980, 2000, and 2020. The pro-
                  densities and a decreasing habitat base.            jections made in the table are considered to be
                                                                      reliable indications of the future relationships
                                                                      between numbers of persons desiring to use
                  3.2.3 Projected Gross Demand                        wildlife, total acreage required to meet this
                                                                      desire, the actual supply of acreage expected
                    To arrive at total (gross) demand figures for     to be available under present land manage-
                  the target years 1980, 2000, and 2020, the          ment and use programs, and the expected un-
                  number of projected participants for each           satisfied demand (unsatisfied opportunity) to
                  planning subarea was multiplied by the              use wildlife resources. The net (unsatisfied)
                  hunter participation rate for that planning         demands are presented in two tables. Table
                  subarea. Gross demands in hunter days are           17-50 shows the unsatisfied or net demand in
                  shown in Table 17-58.                               terms of number of hunter man-days of use,
                                                                      while Table 17-51 presents the unsatisfied op-
                                                                      portunity to use wildlife in terms of net (de-
                  3.2.4 Projected Net Demand                          ficit) acres of wildlife habitat needed.
                                                                        Factors which contribute to the loss of
                    After projecting gross demand for each            wildlife habitat and the resultant shortage in
                  planning subarea, it becomes necessary to es-       future target years are discussed in other sec-
                  timate future change in opportunity (supply)        tions of the appendix. (See Table 17-53 and
                  represented by acres of habitat. A comparison       Figure 17-46.)

                      98 Appendix 17

                      TABLE 17-50 Licenses and Gross and Net Demands for Hunting, Great Lakes Basin (in
                      thousands)

                                          Resident         UrI7        Non-                                         Gross          Net
                                          Licensed     Licensed    Resident      Latent   Actual     Potential      Demand      Demand
                            FSA    Year   Hunters      Hunters     Hunters      Hunters Hunters        Hunters    Man-days    Man-days

                            1.1    1970      69          11            .7            --     81          --          808            --
                                   1980      69          11            .7            6      81          87          838            26
                                   2000      73          12            .7            6      81          92          842            27
                                   2020      77          13            .7            6      81          97          849            32

                            1.2    1970      45.2          7.4         1.5           --     54.1        --          702.5          --
                                   1980      44.1          7.2         1.5           3      52.8        55.8        717.5          15
                                   2000      44.1          7.2         1.5           3      52.8        55.8        709.6          7.2
                                   2020      45.8          7.5         1.5           3.1    54.8        57.9        729.6          27.9

                            2.1    1970     187.9        30.6          5.6           --    224.1        --        2,584.7          --
                                   1980     183.6        29.9          5.5           16.2  219.0        235.2     2,982.6       330.0
                                   2000     210.9        34.4          6.3           18.6  251.6        270.2     3,285.3       632.7
                                   2020     246.1        40.1          7.3           21.7  293.5        315.2     3,678.5       896.5
                            2.2    1970     327.4        53.4          3.3           --    384.1        --        3,840.8          --
                                   1980     425.7        69.4          4.3       171.5     499.4        670.9     6,440.2     2,507.4
                                   2000     521.3        85.0          5.3       210.0     611.6        821.6     7,558.3     3,754.0
                                   2020     640.4        104.4         6.5       257.9     751.3      1,009.2     8,880.8     4,946.1
                            2.3    1970     291          44            2             --    337          --        3,502            --
                                   1980     317          48            2             43    367          410       4,031         504.5
                                   2000     376          56            3             51    435          486       4,308         753.6
                                   2020     441          66            3             60    510          570       4,541         966.4
                            2.4    1970     109.6        17            2.4                 129          --        1,947.2          --
                                   1980     110.8        18.1          2.3           8.0   131.2        139.2     2,003.6       202.3
                                   2000     123.0        20.0          2.6           8.9   145.6        154.5     2,132.2       332.4
                                   2020     139.5        22.7          2.9           10.1  165.1        175.2     2,313.5       514.7
                            3.1    1970      51.7          8.4         1.4           ---    61.5        --          800.3          --
                                   1980      52.7          8.6         1.4           2.4    62.7        65.1        814.6          16.1
                                   2000      58.1          9.5         1.6           2.7    69.2        71.9        862.6          66.5
                                   2020      65.1        10.6          1.8           3.0    77.5        80.5        925.1       132.1

                            3.2    1970     170.7        27.8          1.2           --    199.7        --        2,597.1          --
                                   1980     189.3        30.9          1.3           19.6  221.5        241.1     3,014.0       396.6
                                   2000     223.7        36.5          1.6           23.2  261.8        285.0     3,418.8       786.3
                                   2020     263.3        42.9          1.8           27.3  308.0        335.3     3,856.6     1,203.7
                            4.1    1970     289.4        47.2          .9            --.   337.5        --        2,902.1          --
                                   1980     324.3        52.9          1.0           91.7  378.2        469.9     4,510.6     1,596.4
                                   2000     398.8        65.0          1.2       112.8     465.0        577.8     5,315.3     2,474.2
                                   2020     497.1        81.0          1.5       140.6     579.6        720.2     6,337.9     3,539.0
                            4.2    1970     158.0          6.0         1.0           --    165.0        --        1,844.1          --
                                   1980     187.3          7.5         1.4           29.4  196.2        225.6     2,413.8       581.1
                                   2000     216.5          8.7         1.6           34.0  226.8        260.8     2,738.6       921.8
                                   2020     247.7          9.9         1.8           38.9  259.8        298.3     3,072.5     1,273.5
                            4.3    1970     128            5.0         .9            --    134          --        1,592.0          --
                                   1980     137.1          5.5         1.0           54    144          198       2,344.6       896.7
                                   2000     167            7.0         1.2           66    175          241       2,791.4     1,420.6
                                   2020     204            8.1         1.5           81    214          294       3,352.5     2,035.1
                            4.4    1970     129.1        21.0          3.2           --    153.3        --          613.4          --
                                   1980     132.1        21.5          3.3           33.2  156.9        190.1       760.6       169.2
                                   2000     143.8        23.4          3.6           36.1  170.8        206.9       827.5       262.3
                                   2020     151.5        24.7          3.7           38.1  179.9        218.0       872.0       331.0
                            5.1    1970      64.1        10.4          .4            --     74.9        --          299.7          --
                                   1980      66.1        10.8          .4            15.4   77.3        92.7        370.7          83.8
                                   2000      77.8        12.7          .5            18.1   91.0        109.1       436.5       161.2
                                   2020      89.4        14.6          .6            20.8  104.5        125.3       501.3       240.7
                            5.2    1970     131.3        21.4          .8            --    153.5        --          614.0          --
                                   1980     133.5        21.8          .8            23.5  156.1        179.6       718.4       138.3
                                   2000     157.6        25.7          .9            27.7  184.2        211.9       847.7       293.8
                                   2020     183.4        29.9          1.1           32.3  214.4        246.7       986.8       461.1
                            5.3    1970      30.2          4.9         .4            --     35.6        --          142.2          --
                                   1980      31.4          5.1         .4            4.3    37.0        41.3        165.1          23.2
                                   2000      33.5          5.5         .4            4.6    39.4        44.0        176.2          36.3
                                   2020      36.3          5.9         .5            5.0    42.8        47.8        191.1          53.6

                                                                                      Future Use of Wildlife Resources 99

                     -A1,
                    'X

                      441,

                         @77

                                                                                             Cou@tesy of State of Pennsyl@ania Game Commission
                    FIGURE 17-46       Two Satisfied Resident Pennsylvania Hunters

                    TABLE 17-51         Acres of Wildlife Habitat            TABLE 17-52 Projected Net Demands on
                    Needed to Satisfy Hunter Demands, Great                  Wildlife Habitat by Non-Consumptive Users,
                    Lakes Basin (in thousands)                               Great Lakes Basin'
                    PSA          1980        2000        2020   Factor 1      PSA         1980            2000            2020

                    1. 1           0.0       60.0      150.0      15          1.1          26.0             27.0          32.0
                    1.2            0.0        0.0        50.0     25          1.2          15.0              7.2          27.9
                    2.1            0.0     495.0    1,125.0       15          2.1         330.0           632.7          896.5
                    2.2       1,383.6     2,730.0   4,406.4       12          2.2        2,507.4         3,754.0       4,946.1
                    2.3         299.0      986.0    1,734.0       10          2.3         504.5           753.6          966.4
                    2.4          26.0      316.0       708.0      20          2.4         202.3           332.4          514.7
                    3.1          22.0      152.0       316.0      20          3.1          16.1             66.5         132.1
                    3.2         217.0      619.0    1,082.0       10          3.2         396.6           786.3        1,203.7
                                                                              4.1        1,596.4         2,474.2       3,539.0
                    4.1         439.5      873.5    1,447.0         5         4.2         581.1           921.8        1,273.5
                    4.2         312.0      618.0       944.0      10          4.3         896.7          1,420.6       2,035.1
                    4.3         100.0      410.0       800.0      10          4.4         169.2           262.3          331.0
                    4.4          36.0      175.0       266.0      10          5.1          83.8           161.2          240.7
                    5.1          24.0      161.0       296.0      10          5.2         138.3           293.8          461.1
                    5.2          26.0      307.0       609.0      10          5.3          23.2             36.3          53.6
                    5.3          28.0        76.0      144.0      20          TOTAL      7,486.6        11,929.9       16,653.4
                    TOTAL     2,913.1     7,978.5   14,077.4                  1 Net demand (measured in thousands of man-days)
                    INumber of acres required     for each additional           is unsatisfied demand, the amount the desire
                     hunter.                                                    to do something exceeds the opportunity.

                   100 Appendix 17

                   TABLE 17-53 Acres of Potentially Huntable Land, Great Lakes Basin (in thousands)

                   PSA   Year     Required      Supply        Needs      PSA   Year      Required     Supply      Needs
                   1.1   1970     8,264.6     8,264.6         .0         3.2   2000      2,275.9    1,656.9       619.0
                         1980     8,263.9     8,263.9         0                2020      2,716.9    1,634.9     1,082.0
                         2000     8,316.9     8,256.9         60.0
                         2020     8,393.5     8,243.5         150.0      4.1   1970      1,042.0    1,042.0         0
                                                                              .1980      1,386.2      946.7       439.5
                   1.2   1970     6,179.1     6,179.1         0                2000      1,685.3      811.8       873.5
                         1980     6,179.1     6,179.1         0                2020      2,169.5      722.5     1,447.0
                         2000     6,178.1     6,178.1         0
                         2020     6,225.0     6,175.0         50.0       4.2   1970      1,495.8    1,495.8         0
                                                                               1980      1,791.6    1,479.6       312.0
                   2.1   1970     5,789.4     5,789.4         0                2000      2,071.1    1,453.1       618.0
                         1980     5,775.4     5,715.4         0                2020      2,329.3    1,385.3       944.0
                         2000     6,244.2     5,749.2         495.0
                         2020     6,841.9     5,716.9    1,125.0         4.3   1970      1,451.75   1,451.75        0
                                                                               1980      1,431.83   1,331.83      100.0
                   2.2   1970     1,344.7     1,344.7         0                2000      1,519.57   1,109.57      410.0
                         1980     2,555.0     1,171.4    1,383.6               2020      1,723.19     923.19      800.0
                         2000     3,675.8       945.8    2,730.0
                         2020     5,182.5        776.1   4,406.4         4.4   1970      1,181.5    1,181.5         0
                                                                               1980       920.8       884.8       36.0
                   2.3   1970     3,091.4     3,091.4         0                2000       846.2       671.2       175.0
                         1980     3,350.5     3,051.5         299.0            2020       913.6       647.6       226.0
                         2000     3,976.8     2,990.8         986.0
                         2020     4,650.1     2,916.1    1,734.0         5.1   1970       836.0       836.0         0
                   2.4   1970     6,088.4     6,088.4                          1980       688.6       664.6       24.0
                                                              .0               2000       697.2       536.2       161.0
                         1980     6,102.4     6,076.4         26.0             2020       769.4       473.4       296.0
                         2000     6,369.6     6,053.6         316.0
                         2020     6,735.1     6,027.1         708.0      5.2   1970      2,617.2    2,617.2         0
                                                                               1980      2,052.5    2,026.5       26.0
                   3.1   1970     2,760.9     2,760.9         0                2000      2,029.3    1,722.3       307.0
                         1980     2,776.9     2,754.9         22.0             2020      2,297.7    1,688.7       609.0
                         2000     2,899.1     2,747.1         152.0
                         2020     3,053.3     2,737.3         316.0      5.3   1970      2,615.0    2,615.0         0
                                                                               1980      2,429.2    2,401.2       28.0
                   3.2-  1970     1,711.3     1,711.3         0                2000      2,345.0    2,269.0       76.0
                         1980     1,906.2     1,689.2         217.0            2020      2,407.4    2,263.4       144.0
                   1lAcres needed are cumulative by target years

                   3.2.6 Estimated Non-Hunter Use                      Local ordinances, State laws, and other safety
                                                                       limitations are forcing a decrease in the use of
                      Basin nonconsumptive (non-hunter) use,           firearms. Lower-quality hunting experience
                   based on a judgment decision by the Wildlife        due to degraded habitat and fewer game ani-
                   Work Group, is at least equal to projected con-     mals is reducing the desire to hunt, while the
                   sumptive use. It therefore is listed in Table       desire to use wildlife habitat for non-hunting
                   17-53 as a function of net hunter demand.           purposes is increasing greatly. State game
                   Nonconsumptive use will probably increase           lands near cities are receiving more off-season
                   faster than projected hunter use in some            than hunting use. Increases in these areas
                   aieas. This increase will be due largely to         and other wildlife lands will benefit the non-
                   crowding in the southern tier of Basin States.      consumptive user more as time goes on.

                                                                Section 4

                     ALTERNATIVES FOR SATISFYING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

                   4.1 Capabilities of Wildlife Resources to             lie lands, and acquisition will be limited to deer
                       Sustain Future Demands                            wintering sites.
                                                                           The State assistance program to private
                     Wildlife populations seek the maximum car-          land owners will be continued. The Federal
                   rying capacity of the habitat as dictated by its      Rural Environmental Assistance Program
                   potential and level of management. The finite         (REAP) and State game funds will continue to
                   dimension most important to wildlife, the re-         be available to provide necessary incentives
                   source base in acres, will not increase, but will     for private development of wildlife habitat.
                   decrease in the future due to other pressures.          Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
                   The only means of maintaining a wildlife              sources and Superior National Forest person-
                   population to meet increasing demand is               nel are working together on a wolf manage-
                   through more intensive management.                    ment plan that is now in review.

                   4.2 Known Future Management Programs and              4.2.1.2 Management Recommendations
                        Recommendations                                          (Planning Subarea 1.1)
                     The following is a series of brief discussions        (1) Give top priority to forest management
                   of State and Federal management programs              practices that save or maintain existing open-
                   listed by State. These discussions are for fu-        ings, but also create a diversity of habitat
                   ture programs only in the sense that no Basin         types for wildlife.
                   State is in a position to project increases in          (2) Seed logging roads with a mixture of
                   management much beyond the present rate of            legumes and grasses for wildlife food and
                   increase. Changes in politics are notwithin           maintain hunter access by slowing invasion
                   the realm of projection, and methodology and          by trees and shrubs.
                   future State programs are dependent on fu-              (3) Create openings in the forest and then
                   ture political situations as well as unforeseen       seed with a mixture of legumes and grasses to
                   shifts in the local and national economy.             provide wildlife food as well as an area to ob-
                     Also included is a list of recommendations          serve and harvest game.
                   for management, and solutions to the prob-              (4) Institute prescribed burning of forest
                   lems of each State.                                   lands to create wildlife openings and retard
                                                                         vegetative succession, allowing the growth of
                                                                         young succulent food for wildlife.
                                                                           (5) Release post-sale aspen in forest open-
                                                                         ings by knocking down all small hardwoods,
                   4.2.1 Minnesota                                       creating a favorable condition for aspen re-
                                                                         generation.
                                                                           (6) Complete acquisition of public lands
                                                                         within purchase boundary of national forest.
                   4.2.1.1 Future Management Programs                      (7) Subsidize industry practices by State
                                                                         game divisions to keep forest land acreage in
                     The Minnesota Department of Natural Re-             early succession stages and continue coopera-
                   sources, Division of Game and Fish, expects to        tion between all governmental levels in game
                   acquire 233,000 acres (Statewide) of game and         and timber management practices.
                   fish lands by 1975.                                     (8) Prohibit or regulate snowmobile use as
                     Generally speaking Cook, Lake, Carlton and          to time and areas, i.e., prohibit use during
                   St. Louis Counties have an abundance of pub-          big-game hunting season in hunting areas,

                                                                       101

                  102 Appendix 17

                  and confine use to marked snowmobile trails.        cropland diverted from agricultural pro-
                    (9) Institute zoning laws regulating resi-        duction.
                  dential and commercial development within a
                  certain distance of inland lakes and the Lake       4.2.2.2 Management Recommendations for
                  Superior shore.                                              Northern Forest Region (Planning
                    (10) Identify low-yield timber areas and                   Subarea 1.1 and Northern Half of
                  manage these areas for forest game species                   Planning Subarea 2.1)
                  and public hunting.
                    (11) Purchase, lease, obtain easements, or          (1) Increase wildlife habitat management
                  offer other incentives to local government          under the multiple management planning
                  bodies and private landowners to encourage          concept for State and county forest lands.
                  the preservation of open spaces and natural           (2) Seek improved Federal funding to
                  unique ecological and scenic areas for non-         strengthen the wildlife management program
                  consumptive use.                                    on national forest lands.
                    (12) Develop more markets for forest pro-           (3) Maintain sun-loving, early successional
                  ducts in the area.                                  timbertypes such as aspen,jackpine, andoak,
                    (13) Manage the timber wolf more inten-           which constitute a critical component of
                  sively, including protection-directed control,      forest-game habitat on private lands, by im-
                  habitat management, and establishment of            proving the market for these species and by
                  game animal status.                                 offering cost-sharing to encourage treatments
                    (14) Establish game animal status for             that create favorable conditions for their re-
                  black bear.                                         generation (Figures 17-47 and 17-48).
                    (15) Institute a regulated trapping season          (4) Inventory and maintain existing forest
                  on fishers.                                         openings on public lands for their wildlife
                    (16) Emphasize and utilize important fur-         habitat and aesthetic value.
                  bearers such as beavers, muskrat, mink, and           (5) Identify low-yield timber areas, desig-
                  others.                                             nate their primary management objective as
                    (17) Continue to develop specific regula-         wildlife production and public hunting, and
                  tions to control the damage and changes in          manage them to this end.
                  ecology of wilderness areas caused by canoeist        (6) Initiate research efforts to determine
                  overuse.                                            status of and management needs for nongame
                                                                      wildlife.
                                                                        (7) Restore wildlife law enforcement pro-
                  4.2.2 Wisconsin                                     gram to the 1960 level.
                                                                        (8) Continue to develop and maintain log-
                                                                      ging roads and permanent firebreaks as wild-
                  4.2.2.1 Future Programs                             life openings. This will also provide access for
                                                                      hunters.
                    The Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-             (9) Complete acquisition of public lands
                  sources, Division of Forestry, Wildlife and         within purchase boundaries of national, State,
                  Recreation, planning goals call for the acquis-     and county forests.
                  ition of 385,335 acres of land (Statewide) by         (10) Improve land-use zoning and wildlife
                  1981. Game lands alone are being purchased at       management programs on the county level to
                  the rate of approximately 15,000 acres per          provide for preservation and enhancement of
                  year. A total of 912,841 acres was owned by the     wildlife habitat.
                  Department of Natural Resources on July 1,            (11) Provide for the preservation of unique
                  1971. The U.S. Forest Service plans to acquire      ecological and scenic areas through public ac-
                  5,165 acres of additional land in the northern      quisition, easements, or tax incentives for pri-
                .national forests in a five-year period.              vate landowners.
                    Department efforts to protect wetlands by           (12) Expand wildlife management exten-
                  acquisition and easements will continue. Wild-      sion services, cost-sharing, and other incen-
                  life habitat needs and management on public         tives to private landowners to encourage de-
                  forest lands are expected to receive additional     velopment and maintenance of forest-game
                  consideration under an expanded multiple-           habitat.
                  use concept of forest management. The future          (13) Regulate the use of snowmobiles, trail
                  of farm-game habitat maintenance and im-            bikes, and other off-road vehicles as to time
                  provement lies in preserving existing non-          and area. Prohibit use entirely in certain
                  cropland acreage and by improving cover on          areas, restrict use to certain hours during the

                                                                                         Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements                                     103

                                                                                                                      TIP

                                 kk

                                                                                                                   J"I'V

                                                                                                                                   "Ac -

                                                                                                                   Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                         FIGURE 17-47 Typical Northern Wisconsin Potential Forest Game Habitat Treatment Site Show-
                         ing Residual Aspen, Birch, and Maple Following a Commercial Aspen Harvest

                                    Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources                  Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                         FIGURE 17-48 Northern Wisconsin Forest Game Habitat. Left Photo: "Shearing" is often done
                         after commercial aspen harvest to remove residual trees. Right Photo: Same area 11/2years later
                         (two growing seasons) showing young aspen regeneration, good wildlife habitat.

                   104 Appendix 17

                   deer hunting season, and confine use to                range master plan, but it is not complete at the
                   marked trails where adverse effects on                 time of this writing. The Illinois Park Districts
                   wildlife, habitat or the environment occur.            and Forest Preserves add valuable open space
                     (14) Reintroduce the timber wolf in areas            lands (in some cases high quality wildlife
                   of suitable habitat.                                   habitat) to their holdings at a rate of 7 percent
                                                                          annually. Total district holdings to date are
                                                                          25,000 acres Statewide.
                   4.2.2.3  Management Recommendations for                  Potential projects significant to wildlife in
                            Farm and Urban Region (Planning               the Illinois portion of the Basin include: ex-
                            Subarea 2.2 and Southern Half of              pansion of the existing Chain 0' Lakes and Il-
                            Planning Subarea 2.1)                         linois Beach State Parks to their maximum
                                                                          available land limit, and acquisition of addi-
                     (1) A State or Federal water bank ease-              tional State parks wherever possible; acquisi-
                   ment program or property tax incentives to             tion of the 31 recreation resource areas iden-
                   preserve privately owned wetlands should be            tified in the Northeastern Illinois Metropoli-
                   initiated and adequately funded.                       tan Area Planning Commission Report, "Open
                     (2) Enact legislation which will extend the          Space in Northeastern Illinois;" encourage-
                   principles of wildlife management and public           ment of National Recreation Area develop-
                   access contained in Title IV of the Cropland           ment of the shore of Lake Michigan from
                   Adjustment Program-Food and Agriculture                Waukegan north to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and
                   Act of 1965.                                           development of the Chicago, Aurora, and
                     (3) State and counties should continue to            Elgin Railroad right-of-way and other aban-
                   acquire land to preserve critical components           doned rights-of-way in this area into a system
                   of wildlife habitat as well as unique ecological       of recreation trails and prairie vegetation pre-
                   and scenic areas.                                      serves.
                     (4) Local zoning ordinances should be
                   adopted or amended to limit proliferation of
                   residential, transportation, and industrial de-        4.2.3.2 Management Recommendations
                   velopments and to maintain open space and                      (Planning Subarea 2.2)
                   environmental corridors.
                     (5) Restore waterfowl and furbearer                    (1) Local zoning ordinances should be
                   habitat in lakes and streams by improving              adopted or amended to limit the proliferation
                   water quality and reducing turbidity. De-              of residential and industrial developments
                   velopment of specific toxins for control of            and to maintain open space.
                   rough fish (especially carp) would yield im-             (2) The State and counties should continue
                   mediate benefits.                                      to acquire land to conserve critical compo-
                     (6) Survey wildlife resources and comment            nents of wildlife habitat and to guarantee pub-
                   on impact statements (NEPA-1969) to insure             lic access to natural areas.
                   that the environmental ramifications of pro-             (3) A State wetland or Federal water bank
                   posed developments of projects (such as PL             easement program to prevent drainage and
                   566) are understood and that all beneficial            filling of privately owned wetlands should be
                   uses of water and land resources, including            initiated.
                   wildlife habitat, have been taken into consid-           (4) Obtain easements or offer other incen-
                   eration.                                               tives to private landowners to insure the pre-
                     (7) Retain and expand lease agreements               servation of natural, unique ecological, and
                   between the State and private landowners to            scenic areas.
                   provide controlled access for public hunting.            (5) Retain and expand lease agreements
                     (8) Items number 6 and 7 in Subsection               between State agencies and private land-
                   4.2.2.2 also apply to the southern half of Plan-       owners for controlled access to private lands.
                   ning Subarea 2.1.                                        (6) Continue the Federal Cropland Ad-
                                                                          justment Program or enact other legislation
                                                                          which will extend the principles contained in
                   4.2.3 Illinois                                         Title IV of the Cropland Adjustment Program
                                                                          of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.
                                                                            (7) Enhance waterfowl and furbearer
                   4.2.3.1 Known Future Management Programs               habitat by improvingwater quality and reduc-
                                                                          ing carp populations in lakes and streams.
                     The State is in the process of writing a long-         (8) Improve coordination among all local,

                                                                Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 105

                   State, and Federal agency programs to insure           carp populations in lakes and streams.
                   that the potential environmental ramifica-               (8) Improve coordination between all local,
                   tions of proposed projects are understood and          State, and Federal agency programs to insure
                   that all beneficial uses of water and land re-         that the potential environmental rami-
                   sources, including fish and wildlife habitat,          fications of proposed projects are understood
                   have been taken into consideration. Use to full        and that all beneficial uses of water and land
                   advantage all opportunities under PL 566 for           resources, including fish and wildlife habitat,
                   preserving, improving, and creating fish and           have been taken into consideration.
                   wildlife habitat and open space.                         (9) Encourage and support the activities of
                                                                          local and national conservation organizations
                                                                          in the preservation and improvement of the
                   4.2.4 Indiana                                          quality of the environment.
                                                                            (10) If supported by biological data, enact
                                                                          State legislation to permit the hunting of
                   4.2.4.1 Future Management Programs                     mourning doves.
                                                                            (11) Enact legislation and develop a policy
                     The Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife            on stream and lakeshore filling that would
                   plans to acquire 2,500 to 3,000 acres by 1980 as       prevent further destruction of privately
                   additions to existing game lands in the three          owned marshes as well as degradation of
                   planning subareas. Also planned is the acquis-         watercourses by municipal dumps. The new
                   ition of 4,000 acres of wetlands. The State            Ohio Stream Littering Law and the 1968 In-
                   hopes to initiate a natural stream pres-               diana Department of Natural Resources,
                   ervation program which would initially in-             Natural Resource Commission Wetlands Pol-
                   clude 72 miles of streams. Expansion of the            icy Statement should be helpful in the de-
                   Indiana Dunes area by the Federal govern-              velopment of this policy.
                   ment to include all significant dunes and open           (12) Enact more effective legislation on
                   lands is probable.                                     water pollution that could improve the water
                                                                          quality of streams such as the Maumee and
                                                                          thereby enhance the waterfowl wintering and
                   4.2.4.2 Management Recommendations                     production potential, furbearer potential,
                            (Planning Subareas 2.2, 2.3, and 4.2)         fishing potential, and general aesthetic qual-
                                                                          ity.
                     (1) Local zoning ordinances should be                  (13) Amend PL 83-566 (Small Watershed
                   adopted or amended to limit proliferation of           Program) to include cost of additional land
                   residential and industrial development and             rights for mitigation as a construction cost to
                   maintain open space.                                   be cost-shared at the same rate as the struc-
                     (2) The State and counties should continue           tural measure creating the need for miti-
                   to acquire land to conserve critical eompo-            gation.
                   nents of wildlife habitat and to guarantee pub-
                   lic access to natural areas.
                     (3) A State wetland or Federal water bank            4.2.5 Michigan
                   easement program to prevent drainage and
                   filling of privately owned wetlands should be
                   initiated.                                             4.2.5.1 Future Programs
                     (4) Obtain easements or offer other incen-
                   tives to private landowners to insure the pres-          By 1977 the Michigan Department of
                   ervation of natural, unique ecological, and            Natural Resources has proposed to acquire
                   scenic areas.                                          198,000 acres of land for wildlife purposes in-
                     (5) Retain and expand lease agreements               cluding scarce habitat, game land additions,
                   between State agencies and private land-               and recreation areas. Most of this acquisition
                   owners for controlled access to private lands.         is proposed for southern areas, since the de-
                     (6) Continue the Federal Cropland Ad-                mand is highest there and the number of users
                   justment Program or enact other legislation            per acre is higher. Additional capital expendi-
                   which will extend the principles contained in          tures (items not funded through existing or
                   Title IV of the Cropland Adjustment Program            foreseeable fund sources) may provide for
                   of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.               257,800 more acres of land. This would include
                     (7) Enhance waterfowl and furbearer hab-             scarce habitat, deer and upland habitat, and
                   itat by improving water quality and reducing           wetlands. The U.S. Forest Service has plans to

                   106 Appendix 17

                   purchase blocks of private land remaining in            (7) Provide the Michigan Wildlife Division
                   the six national forests in northern Michi-           with permit-granting authority for marsh
                   gan.                                                  vegetation modifications.
                                                                           (8) Provide greater protection of marsh
                                                                         areas through legislative action, or through
                   4.2.5.2 Management Recommendations for                policy changes by such agencies as the U.S.
                           Southern Part of the State                    Army Corps of Engineers, placing wetland
                                                                         preservation on an equal basis with naviga-
                     (1) Update and strengthen existing zoning           tion and shoreline construction activity.
                   laws and ordinances. High-value wildlife hab-           (9) Provide legislative or policy changes to
                   itats such as the Lake Erie marshes, lower            assure the enhancement of wildlife habitat in
                   Detroit River marshes, Lake St. Clair marshes         the application of PL 566 and REAP projects.
                   and remaining good stream bottoms should be           Expansion of the Michigan Department of
                   rigidly zoned against further development             Natural Resources private land habitat man-
                   and destruction. Zoning classifications that          agement program should include providing
                   preclude development, and modifications of            technical service to the Rural Environmental
                   these areas would help protect them and re-           Assistance Program. Cost-sharing by the
                   sult in a freeze or lowering of real estate val-      State or another public agency, in addition to
                   ues to a point commensurate with the re-              the cost-sharing already provided the private
                   source agencies' ability to purchase lands for        landowner under REAP, could greatly in-
                   permanent protection.                                 crease management practices and improve
                     (2) Amend PL 83-566 to include cost of ad-          the quality of wildlife habitat.
                   ditional land rights for mitigation as a con-           (10) Continue efforts to purchase as much
                   struction cost to be shared at the same rate as       wetland habitat and as many parcels of impor-
                   the structural measure creating the need for          tant pheasant habitat as possible.
                   mitigation.                                             (11) Continue action to restrict the man-
                     (3) Intensify water-pollution control ac-           ufacture, sale, and use of remaining hard and
                   tivities, particularly in cases of floating oil,      persistent pesticides.
                   persistent pesticides, and heavy metals.                (12) Develop a program to assist and guide
                     (4) Strengthen or amend ASCS, Forest                urban homeowners and others in the preser-
                   Service and SCS activities to benefit the             vation and enhancement of open space for
                   wildlife programs as follows:                         wildlife.
                       (a) Institute policy changes that require
                   earmarking funds specifically for wildlife en-
                   hancement, and provide for administrative             4.2.5.3 Management Recommendations for
                   follow-up on the use of these funds.                          Northern Part of the State
                       (b) Protect project-construction work
                   such as drainage ditches and channels by fenc-          The problems of changing plant succession
                   ing from livestock and other wildlife habitat         in the northern forests of Michigan have been
                   degrading uses.                                       partially resolved by an updated policy for
                       (c) Emphasize funding for routine                 managing State forest lands which was put
                   wildlife enhancement practices, such as food          into effect in June 1970. The main emphasis in
                   and cover plot plantings.                             this plan is multiple use, with the recommen-
                       (d) Legislate to provide renewal of the           dation that timber management be modified
                   Cropland Adjustment Program land con-                 to give equal consideration to wildlife man-
                   tracts.                                               agement. Modification of timber management
                     (5) Change the funding of water resources           practices is the most effective method of indi-
                   planning to include States that have the most         rectly improving wildlife habitat. Other ap-
                   to gain or lose from these plans.                     proaches are direct wildlife habitat improve-
                     (6) Include provision for public access to          ment measures, such as cutting to produce
                   lands covered by any future crop diversion            deer browse, food and cover planting, and de-
                   program or continuation of the current pro-           velopment of trails and wildlife openings. The
                   gram under the Food and Agricultural Act of           following are recommended timber manage-
                   1965. Approximately 62,189 acres of private           ment practices:
                   land now open to public access under the Crop-          (1) Scatter small timber sales.
                   land Adjustment Program of the U.S. De-                 (2) Spread cutting on large sale areas over
                   partment of Agriculture will revert to private        several years.
                   control by the year 1976.                               (3) Preserve uncut plots and travel lanes

                                                               Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 107

                  for wildlife in large clear cuttings.                   into wilderness areas and habitat with little
                     (4) Use selective cutting to         open the        chance of conflict with livestock. Improve-
                  canopy of dense forests.                                ment of deer habitat should have secondary
                     (5) Maintain adequate cover in deer winter           benefits to wolves.
                  concentration areas.                                      (2) Bald eagle and osprey need nest-site
                     (6) Plan cutting programs to retain mature           acquisition and protection, tightening of con-
                  male aspen for ruffed grouse and mast-                  trols on persistent pesticides, and clean-up of
                  producing oaks for deer and bear.                       heavy concentrations of pesticides in polluted
                     (7) Plan winter cuttings so food for deer is         waters to survive.
                  provided when and where needed.                           (3) The prairie chicken needs continued
                     (8) Recycle aspen by noncommercial                   protection and management of scarce prairie
                  means when demand is not sufficient to secure           chicken habitat.
                  harvest before deterioration of stand and sub-            (4) Kirtland's warbler needs continued
                  sequent conversion to shade tolerant species.           management of jack pine stands to maintain
                  Aspen stands of several ages in fairly close            an adequate supply of habitat, and possibly a
                  proximity are desirable.                                study of wintering grounds in the Bahamas to
                     (9) Use in-stand conversion to preserve              determine wintering habitat requirements.
                  buffer strips of original type between planted            (5) Pine marten and fishers need protec-
                  areas and other timber.                                 tion from trapping in release site areas. Ef-
                     (10) Preserve and maintain existing small            forts to reestablish the animals in suitable
                  openings.                                               habitat, and manage habitat in areas of suc-
                     (11) Reserve openings in larger planta-              cessful reestablishment should be continued.
                  tions.                                                    (6) Canada lynx should be protected from
                     (12) Break large planted areas with                  trapping and hunting in the Upper Peninsula
                  natural cover strips.                                   where they are making a comeback.
                     The following are recommended wildlife                 (7) The program of controlling cowbirds
                  habitat management practices:                           should continue in areas where they are
                     (1) Employ controlled burns to stimulate             parasitizing Kirtland's warbler nests.
                  aspen and jack pine regeneration and growth
                  of cherries, birch, Juneberries, dogwood,
                  blueberries, raspberries, and other herba-              4.2.6 Ohio
                  ceous plants; create or maintain forest open-
                  ings; and open selected 10- to 20-acre areas
                  adjacent to deer yards.                                 4.2.6.1 Future Programs
                     (2) Mechanically create openings and
                  trails in the forest.                                     The Ohio Division of Wildlife has tentative
                     (3) Cut, spray, or bulldoze deer browse              plans to purchase 20,000 acres of wildlife lands
                  plants to increase    sprouts and shoots avail-         in the Basin portion of Ohio. In addition to
                  able to deer.                                           these lands (most of which are additions to
                     (4) Release or plant fruit-producing trees           existing State upland wildlife lands), the Divi-
                  and shrubs.                                             sion also hopes to purchase much of the re-
                     (5) Establish evergreen cover in extensive           maining 15,000 acres of Lake Erie marshes.
                  stands of aspen or hardwoods.                           Other divisions of the Ohio Department of
                     (6) Plant browse, particularly male aspen,           Natural Resources will purchase 9,500 acres of
                  and cover-producing trees in areas of                   natural areas. Acquisition of the remaining
                  maximum benefit to wildlife.                            marshes will be by far the Ohio Division of
                     The solution to overuse of public lands by           Wildlife's most important land purchase in the
                  snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles lies in         near future. These marshes are prime wildlife
                  measures intended to reduce the numbers of              habitat with Basinwide importance to sea-
                  these vehicles. Higher registration fees, more          sonal concentrations of waterfowl and public
                  restrictions on their use, and outright limiting        use. The ability of marshlands to support non-
                  of their numbers on public lands are pos-               consumptive wildlife use is far greater than
                  sibilities.                                             their consumptive-use potential. Even though
                     The problem of protecting and perpetuating           the cost of this program is the highest in the
                  rare and endangered species should employ               budget, the acquisition of these wetlands may
                  specific solutions for each species:                    be the most efficient and economical recom-
                     (1) Timber wolf should be reintroduced               mendation proposed.

                   108 Appendix 17

                   4.2.6.2 Management Recommendations                      (11) Continue and expand the wildlife hab-
                            (Planning Subareas 4.2 and 4.3)              itat benefits and public access opportunities
                                                                         on USDA diverted cropland as program re-
                     (1) Acquire public lands, including at least        quirements.
                   15,000 acres of the remaining wetlands in the           (12) Expand assistance and guidance to
                   Lake Erie marsh region of Ohio.                       urban homeowners and others to preserve and
                     (2) Obtain perpetual easements or pur-              enhance open space for wildlife.
                   chase unique and critical wildlife areas.               (13) Provide increased technical assis-
                     (3) Alter existing zoning laws to provide           tance to individuals and public agencies so
                   for preservation of natural open space.               that wildlife benefits can be incorporated into
                     (4) Provide legislation to strengthen and           their land management operations (e.g., mow-
                   broaden the State's wildlife management au-           ing of roadside berms during the pheasant
                   thority to include all native wildlife species.       nesting season).
                   Companion legislation providing additional              (14) Institute rental and lease agreements
                   funding to meet this broader responsibility is        between public agencies and owners of private
                   also needed.                                          land to provide public access.
                     (5) Enact State legislation to permit the             (15) Encourage, advise, and support the
                   hunting of mourning doves, based upon biolog-         activities of local end national conservation
                   ical data.                                            organizations in the preservation and im-
                     (6) Provide better legislation on stream            provement of the quality of the environment.
                   and lakeshore filling that would prevent                (16) Develop and strengthen means to en-
                   further destruction of privately owned                sure that recreational and other uses of public
                   marshes. Legislation similar to the new Ohio          hunting areas will not prevent these lands
                   Stream Littering Law should be adopted.               from continuing to contribute to the regional
                     (7) Provide more effective legislation on           wildlife habitat base, and provide safeguards
                   water pollution to improve the water quality          to ensure quality hunting and wildlife-related
                   of streams such as the Maumee and thereby             outdoor recreational opportunity. This would
                   enhance the waterfowl wintering and pro-              include improved planning and development
                   duction potential, furbearer potential, fishing       of these areas compatible with biological con-
                   potential, and general aesthetic quality.             siderations and restrictions on types of rec-
                     (8) Amend Public Law 83-566 (Small                  reational use, the number of users, and time of
                   Watershed Program) to include the cost of ad-         use.
                   ditional land rights together with the cost of          (17) Give more attention to the consump-
                   development for wildlife use for mitigation as        tive and nonconsumptive use of furbearers.
                   a construction cost to be cost-shared at the          Ohio is currently one of the two top commer-
                   same rate as the structural measures creating         cial muskrat harvesting States in the nation.
                   the need for mitigation.                              Planning Subarea 4.3 also. contains some of
                     (9) Initiate and improve continuing re-             the State's better beaver habitat. Landowner
                   source inventories to monitor wildlife popula-        complaints indicate that more recreational
                   tion changes and land-use changes of major            use could be made of these species to help
                   significance to wildlife. Wildlife population in-     satisfy some of the projected demand. Ex-
                   ventories need to be more comprehensive,              panded educational programs on the aesthetic
                   more precise, and of sufficient sample size to        and wildlife values created by the beaver are
                   permit analysis by relatively small sampling          needed to reduce land owner resistance to this
                   units (county size or smaller). Existing soil         species where little economic damage is in-
                   and water conservation needs inventories and          volved.
                   forest surveys by the U.S. Department of Ag-
                   riculture should be modified to provide addi-
                   tional data of wildlife significance. Other en-       4.2.7 Pennsylvania
                   vironmental parameters (e.g., water quality)
                   should also be monitored.
                     (10) Increase the Ohio Department of                4.2.7.1 Future Management Programs
                   Natural Resources technical assistance to en-                 (Planning Subarea 4.4)
                   hance wildlife habitat benefits through soil
                   and water conservation practice, cost-share             The Pennsylvania Game Commission plans
                   programs, and crop production adjustment              expansion of the 14 State Game Land Units
                   programs of the U.S. Department of Agricul-           within Erie County as funds and land become
                   ture.                                                 available. However, escalating land costs may

                                                             Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 109

                  limit acquisition. The Land and Water Con-            4.2.8 New York
                  servation and Reclamation Bond Issue, com-
                  monly called Project 500, will provide funds for
                  game habitat improvement and hunter ac-               4.2.8.1 Future Programs
                  cess. This bond issue provides funds to the
                  Game and Fish Commissions for development,             The New York State Department of En-
                  but no acquisition can be undertaken with the         vironmental Conservation has plans for
                  funds. Intensive development for small game,          wildlife enhancement in the Basin through
                  forest game and waterfowl is underway on five         1976. These plans include the development of
                  State game lands and work is in the planning          40,000 acres of wetlands for waterfowl produc-
                  stage for the other management units with             tion, purchase of 69,000 additional acres of
                  bond issue funds.                                     wetlands, provision of 170 miles of hunting ac-
                    An additional source of funding for wildlife        cess roads, and improvement of 11,000 acres of
                  habitat development will be available through         wildlife habitat.
                  the Penn Soils Resource Conservation and
                  Development Project that includes Erie
                  County. Emphasis within this project will be
                  on waterfowl habitat improvement by the use           4.2.8.2 General Management Recommenda-
                  of small ponds and dikes.                                     tions (Planning Subareas 4.4, 5.1,
                    Expansion of existing Farm-Game Coopera-                     5.2, and 5.3)
                  tive units is also planned for the future.
                    Experimental introduction of the sharp-               (1) Promote better private landowner-
                  tailed grouse, a western species, may help            hunter relationships through State fish and
                  compensate for low pheasant productivity in           game agency educational programs with em-
                  this area. The Game Commission is also exper-         phasis on the recreational and economic bene-
                  imenting with Korean pheasants here.                  fits realized by both parties. This could al-
                                                                        leviate public access restrictions. This pro-
                                                                        gram could also be used to improve the exist-
                                                                        ing hunting preserves by informing land-
                                                                        owners of sound wildlife management prac-
                  4.2.7.2 Management Recommendations                    tices.
                           (Planning Subarea 4.4)                         (2) Increase acquisition of public hunting
                                                                        lands to offset the trend toward diminished
                    (1) Improve legislation and provide strict          private land access.
                  enforcement of water quality standards to al-           (3) Improve zoning by increased emphasis
                  leviate degradation of waterfowl feeding              on green belts and open space, and improve
                  areas.                                                watershed planning by establishing regula-
                    (2) Develop agreements with the Corps of            tory powers. These are means of controlling
                  Engineers to prevent further destruction of           urban encroachment into wildlife habitat.
                  the Erie Bay marshes.                                   (4) Improve effectiveness of Federal con-
                    (3) Preserve green areas by zoning to con-          servation programs such as REAP by promot-
                  trol urban expansion.                                 ing more landowner participation in fish and
                    (4) Expand farm-game conservation proj-             wildlife management.
                  ects and safety zone programs to promote                (5) Take measures to rehabilitate de-
                  better landowner-hunter relationships.                graded streams after pollution levels are re-
                    (5) Increase land acquisition programs.             duced through rigid pollution control regula-
                    (6) Develop a conservation education pro-           tion and strong enforcement.
                  gram to reach all segments of the population.
                    (7) Continue an effective law enforcement
                  program.
                    (8) Initiate research programs that will            4.2.8.3 Waterfowl and Wetland Recom-
                  provide information on maximum carrying                        mendations
                  capacity for native species, and possible intro-
                  duction of exotic species.                              (1) Maintain and preserve the Lake On-
                    (9) Expand land management program to               tario and St. Lawrence River marshes as well
                  improve habitat for forest- and farm-game             as other wetlands, including the Barge Canal
                  species.                                              and large inland marshes.
                    (10) Develop waterfowl habitat areas.                 (2) Enhance remaining waterfowl habitat

                  110 Appendix 17

                  by giving high priority to legal protection of      4.2.8.5 Upland Game Recommendations
                  remaining wetlands and waterfowl develop-
                  ments in conjunction with State and Federal           (1) Manage both farm-game and upland
                  water development programs.                         game through leases of abandoned farms.
                    (3) Reduce user access problems by wildlife         (2) Reduce posted land to improve hunter
                  management and development of suitable              access.
                  State owned wetlands not currently managed            (3) Manage forest-game habitat through
                  by the Bureau of Wildlife.                          FPA and FWMA programs.
                    (4) Establish small shallow-water areas             (4) Purchase additional land for public use.
                  and marshes throughout the basin to improve           (5) Fence woodlots to protect against ex-
                  local waterfowl production and to increase          cessive grazing except where grazing is desir-
                  areas available to migratory waterfowl. Plan-       able as a woodcock management measure.
                  ning Subarea 5.3 is particularly well-suited for
                  marsh development.
                    (5) Provide ownership or control of State         4.2.8.6 Big-Game Recommendations
                  owned underwater wetlands including buffer
                  strips by the agency most concerned with              (1) Reduce illegal kill and control free run-
                  natural resource management. This would             ning dogs in large zones where deer are re-
                  solve conflicts of interest which arise over        duced by such factors. This could result in an
                  marina developments and other intrusions            increase of as much as five times the present
                  into wetland habitat.                               buck harvest.
                    (6) Acquire first-priority wetlands still in        (2) Reduce and maintain deer populations
                  private ownership.                                  in Central Adirondacks and Central Tug Hill
                    (7) Curtail agricultural stream channel-          and southern tier zones at a level commensu-
                  ization projects threatening wetlands.              rate with available food and cover. This will
                    (8) Stabilize water on Lake Ontario at sea-       result in an improved deer herd and will allow
                  sonal levels compatible with the best interests     depleted winter yard areas to recover.
                  of shore wetland management.                          (3) Provide greater access to deer popula-
                    (9) Consider wetland values in all land-use       tions. This could increase recreational oppor-
                  planning efforts, and help preserve these           tunity and desired harvest.
                  areas through local governmental open space           (4) Increase publicly owned land area to a
                  and natural land-use zoning or easement             level commensurate with future nonconsump-
                  agreements.                                         tive use.
                    (10) Institute better liaison and coopera-          (5) Further influence land management
                  tion between the New York Department of             practices to benefit deer.
                  Environmental Conservation and other State            (6) Institute policy changes to insure an
                  and Federal agencies. The New York State            adequate deer harvest, including special sea-
                  Conservation Law, Section 429, is a factor in       sons in problem areas.
                  the protection of wetland degradation from
                  dredging and filling.
                                                                      4.2.8.7 Other Recommendations

                  4.2.8.4 Farm-Game Recommendations                     (1) Improve enforcement of anti-pollution
                                                                      laws and improve laws needed to solve pollu-
                    (1) Provide more recreational opportunity         tion problems. Water milfoil problems in in-
                  through reduction of posted land or access          land lakes might be solved if nutrients were
                  agreements with private landowners.                 reduced. Changes in detergent legislation
                    (2) Modify present farming methods. For           could have a bearing on this problem (nutrient
                  example, use flushing bars on haymowers, re-        enrichment) everywhere.
                  tain small hedgerows and fencerows, protect           (2) Provide firm State policy decisions to
                  and manage woodlots and wetlands, and en-           protect and preserve unique habitat types and
                  courage crop rotation.                              enact protective legislation to solve the prob-
                    (3) Provide technical assistance to farmers       lem of wetland drainage for agricultural pur-
                  and rural landowners on land use in develop-        poses.
                  ing the wildlife potential (wider FWMA pro-           (3) Provide wildlife management practices
                  gram involvement).                                  to control beaver, such as live trapping and

                                                            Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 111

                  relocating or increased trapping pressure, to       important wildlife species should be em-
                  help solve water quality problems on moun-          phasized.
                  tain streams.                                          (10) Investigate the possibility of new
                    (4) Monitor effects of pollutants on wildlife.    species introduction in grassland zones (St.
                                                                      Lawrence Plain) and the possible problems
                                                                      from such introductions. '
                  4.2.8.8 Additional Recommendations Specific            The following are recommended wetlands
                          to Planning Subarea 5.3                     actions:
                                                                         (1) Identify important wetlands including
                    (1) Make no attempt to promote species            littoral zones adjacent to navigable waters.
                  acclimated to more temperate areas, such as            (2) Dedicate State owned littoral zones to
                  pheasants. Effects of weather on all indige-        wildlife purposes and control select adjoining
                  nous wildlife should be publicized.                 uplands to sever riparian interest.
                    (2) Provide better legislation and in-               (3) Protect remaining wetlands by impact
                  creased law enforcement and conduct inten-          reviews and zoning.
                  sive public relations campaigns to alleviate il-       (4) Acquire most important inland wetland
                  legal shooting and dog predation on deer.           units (to State ownership).
                    (3) Liberalize harvest regulations in areas          (5) Provide better coordination with public
                  of intensive land-use. Extension programs are       agencies promoting agricultural drainage
                  needed to provide informational material to         and other land use affecting wildlife.
                  landowners to aid in eliminating wildlife prob-        (6) Encourage wetland development and
                  lems (beaver damage, etc.).                         enhancement.
                    (4) Provide better techniques to monitor
                  wildlife populations, particularly in wilder-
                  ness areas.                                         4.3 Estimated State Budgets for the Study
                    (5) Build additional improved boat launch-             Period
                  ing sites on large water bodies to provide in-
                  creased hunter access to wilderness areas.             Tables 17-54 through 17-74 provide cost in-
                  Long-term cooperative agreements with large         formation by State and planning subarea for
                  land holding interests are also important.          the 50-year study period. These tables are ar-
                    (6) Institute changes in forest preserve          ranged in the same sequence as the discussion
                  management policy to permit wildlife habitat        in Subsection 4.2. "Ongoing Budgets" covers
                  management practices.                               the management programs generally dis-
                    (7) Provide extension programs to help            cussed in Subsection 4.2. "Additional Capital
                  prevent pulpwood operations in deer yards.          Expenditures" covers the management rec-
                  Planning, legislation, and zoning efforts are       commendations in Subsection 4.2, including a
                  also needed to prevent impoundments on im-          breakdown of proposed acreage acquisition.
                  portant deer wintering areas as well as deer           All Basin States but Michigan are listed as
                  yard harrassment by off-road vehicles.              having annual budgets, with the cumulative
                    (8) Administer long-range public relations        ongoing budgets (1971-1980, 1981-2000, 2001-
                  programs to better inform the public on the         2020) at the bottom of the table. Michigan's
                  issue of deer harvest regulations.                  cumulative budget is listed under the main
                    (9) Provide a program of wildlife tree plant-     heading.
                  ings on private lands recently abandoned from          Information is not presented for the Illinois
                  farming. Concentration on slow-growing              section of Planning Subarea 2.2 because it is a
                  species and those known to be preferred by          completely urbanized area.

                          112 Appendix 17

                           TABLE 17-54 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 1.1, Minnesota
                                    ITEM                                1970                       198o                         2000                       2020

                                    On-going                        $ 200,000                    300,000                 4oo,ooo                         500,000
                                    Budgetsi

                                    Additional                          150,000                  250,000                 350,000                        450,000
                                    Capital
                                    Expenditures2
                                    Other3                                 6o,ooo                100,000                 150,000                        200,000
                                    TOTAL                               41o.,ooo                 650,000                 9OO,OW                     1,15MOO

                                    'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                    included and are 20 percent of budget.
                                    2ftems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                    3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                        "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: wildlife habitat management practices on 693,200 acres;
                                    subsidized forestry practices on 28,200 acres; acquisition of 14,480 acres of deer yards; establishment of a hunting season on moose;
                                    establishment of a trapping season on fisher; establishment of intensive management and game animal status for the timber wolf.
                                        Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,550,000; 1981-2000 = $7,050,000; 2001-2020
                                    $9,050,000.

                                    TABLE 17-55 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 1.1, Wisconsin

                                    ITEM                                                         1970                                               198o

                                    On-going                                             $ 372,000                                               520,000
                                    Budgetsl

                                    Additional Capital
                                    Expenditures2                                                                                                300,000
                                    Other3                                                                                                         80,000

                                    TOTAL                                                    372,000                                             9001000

                                    'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittm an- Robertson funds are
                                    included and are 22 percent of budget.
                                    @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                    3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: 40,000 acres ofimproved forest habitat (through management); 16,000
                                    acres of maintained aspen regeneration; 6,000 acres of maintained forest openings; 120 miles ofdeveloped and 4,000 miles ofmaintained trails
                                    and firebreaks; 6,000 acres of land acquisition; improved law enforcement; research on nongame wildlife species; extensive wildlife
                                    management practices; management of low yield timber areas-20,000 acres of improved habitat. The estimated costs for these programs are
                                    $3,414,000 for the period 1971-1980. The estimated "On-going Budget" for 1971-1980 is $4,534,000.

                                                                                             Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 113

                         TABLE 17-56 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.1, Wisconsin
                            ITEM                                                                1970                                                        1980

                            On-going
                            Budgets        1                                              $ 1,68o,OOO                                                   2,350,000

                            Additional Capital
                            Expenditures2                                                                                                               1,300,000
                            Other3                                                                                                                          350,000

                            TOTAL                                                             1,68o,ooo                                                 4,000,0W

                                  'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                  included and are 40 percent of budget.
                                  @Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                  3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                      "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: 40,000 acres of improved forest habitat; 32,000 acres of maintained
                                  aspen regeneration; 10,500 acres of maintained access trails; 15,000 acres of forest land acquisition; improved law enforcement practices;
                                  management oflow yield timber areas for wildlife; 65,000 acres ofwetlands preservation; 100,000 acres ofwildlife cover on diverted cropland;
                                  150,000 acres of restored lakes and streams; 50,000 acres of public hunting leases; research on nongame wildlife species; extensive wildlife
                                  management practices. Estimated costs for these programs are $12,320,000. The estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the period
                                  1971-1980 is $20,485,000.

                          TABLE 17-57 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 2.2,
                          Wisconsin

                                  ITEM                                                       1970                                                 1980

                                  On-going                                        $ 388,000                                                    550,000
                                  Budgetsi

                                  Additional Capital
                                  Ex-penditures2                                                                                               350,000
                                  Other3                                                                                                         75,000

                                  TOTAL                                                388,ow                                                  975,000

                                  @Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                  included and are 37 percent of budget.
                                  21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                  3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                      "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: preservation of 40,000 acres ofwetlands; improved wildlife cover on
                                  25,000 acres ofdiverted cropland; 50,000 acres ofrestored lakes and streams; wildlife surveys and environmental impact studies; 40,000 acres of
                                  public hunting leases; nongame wildlife research; improved law enforcement. The cost for these programs for the 1971-1980 period is
                                  $3,460,000. The estimated "On-going Budget" cost for 1971-1980 is $4,771,000.

                          114 Appendix 17

                           TABLE 17-58 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.2, Indiana

                                     ITEM                                     1970                           1980                         2000                     2020

                                     On-going
                                     Budgetsi                             $ 2106,000                       24o,ooo                      280,000                  320,000

                                     Additional
                                     Capital
                                     Exrlenditures2                                                        696,ooo                      659,000                  862,000
                                     Other3

                                     TOTAL                                    216,ooo                      9306,000                     939,000              1,182,000

                                     'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                     included and are 29 percent of budget.
                                     @Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                     3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                         "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include; a natural stream preservation program for acquisition of
                                     easements, in-fee or rights-of-way, along 19 milesofstream; leasingofl6,000 acres ofprivate land toprovide hunter access; acquisition of 1,000
                                     acres ofwetlands, mark boundaries and provide access; acquisition ofl,930 acres offish and wildlife lands; establishment ofa wildlife babitat
                                     classification act.
                                         Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,532,000; 1981-2000 = $5,220,000;2001-2020
                                     $6,020,000.

                          TABLE 17-59 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.3, Indiana

                                     ITEM                                  1970                         198o                       2000                         2020

                                     On-going
                                     Budgetsi                        $ 173,900                      200,000                       24o,ooo                     280,000

                                     Additional
                                     Carital
                                     Expenditures2                                                  732,000                   1,285,000                   1,425,000
                                     Other3                                            Unknown

                                     TOTAL                               173,900                    932,000                   1,525,000                   1,705,000

                                     @ Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research,ete., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson fundsare
                                     included and are 23 percent of budget.
                                     @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                     3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: natural stream preservation program for acquisition of
                                     easements, rights-of-way, or in-fee along48 miles ofstream; acquisition of3,000 acres ofwetland; lease of3,500 acres ofprivate land for public
                                     access; acquisition of 2,000 acres of Fish and Wildlife lands; establishment of a wildlife habitat classification act.
                                       Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" forthe target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $1,883,000; 1981-2000 @ $4,420,000; 2001-2020
                                     $5,220,000.

                                                                                                Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 115

                          TABLE 17-60 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.2, Indiana
                                    ITEM                            1970                           1980                           2000                         2020

                                    On-going
                                    Budgetsi                      $ 66,ooo                       79,000                          85,000                      100,000

                                    Additional
                                    Capital               2
                                    J@xrenditures                                                80,000                        135,000                         20,000
                                    Other3                                             Unknoim

                                    TOTAL                              6) 6, ow                 155,000                       220, OW                        120,000

                                    'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. No Pittman -Robertson funds
                                    are included in this budget.
                                    @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                    @Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                      "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: a natural stream preservation program for acquisition of ease-
                                    ments, rights-of-way, or in-fee along 5 miles of stream; lease of 34,000 acres of private land for hunter access; establishment of a wildlife
                                    habitat classification act.
                                       Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $709,500; 1981-2000 = $1,605,000; 2001-2020
                                    $1,857,500.

                           TABLE 17-61 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.3, Michigan

                                    ITE211                                    19'(1-1980                          1981-2ooo                                  2001-2020

                                    On-going
                                    Budgetsi                                7,001,959         2                   14,2oo,ooo                               14,9oo,ooo

                                    Additional
                                    Capital
                                    Expenditures3                           6.4oo,ooo                             11,850,000                                 9,850,000
                                    Other4                                       575,000                                  900,000                                950,000

                                    TOTAL                                 13,97(6),959                            26,950,000                               25,700,000

                                    'Projection ofannual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittra an- Robertson funds are
                                    included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                    21neludes State recreational bonding funds.
                                    @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                    4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of 11,800 acres of upland habitat; acquisition of 11,500 acres of wetlands;
                                    development of 24,000 acres of wetlands; information and ecology training centers; Canada goose release program; waterfowl identification
                                    training; development of nonconsumptive use of waterfowl; -ore conservation officers.

                           116 Appendix 17

                           TABLE 17-62 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea, 3.2, Michigan

                                      ITEM                                       1971-198o                            1981-2000                                   2001-2020

                                      On-going
                                      Budgetsl                             $ 8,270,2672                               10"000,000                               12,000,000

                                      Additional
                                      Capital
                                      Expenditures3                           18.,6oo,ooo                             35,000,000                               l7o7@0,000
                                      Other4                                         500,000                             1,000"000                                1.,200,000

                                      TOTAL                                   27,370,267                              46,"JOOO                                 30,950,000

                                      'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                      included are are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                      21neludes State recreational bonding funds.
                                      31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                      4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                         "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 12,000 acres of upland habitat; acquisition of 18,000 acres of wetlands;
                                      developmentof31,000 acres ofwetlands; Cana0agoose release program; development oftarget shooting facilities; managed waterfowl hunting
                                      program; improved law enforcement; management of 15,000 acres of upland habitat; and development of an ecology museum facility.

                           TABLE 17-63 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan
                                      ITE24S                                    1971-1980                           1981-2000                                  2001-2020

                                      On-going
                                      Budgetsi                           $ 4,,790,4902                                8,200,000                              8,9oo,ooo

                                      Additional
                                      Capital
                                      ExpenditureS3                        l8Y8OOJOOO                                15,200,000
                                      Other4                                     850.,000                             1,000,000                              1,750,000

                                      TOTAL                                24,44o,49o                                24,4oo,ow                             26,150,OW

                                      'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                      included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                      21ncludes State recreational bonding funds.
                                      @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                      @Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                        "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of10,000 acres ofsmall game habitat; acquisition of 10,000 acres of wetlands;
                                      development of 18,600 acres of wetlands; a waterfowl hunting museum and ecology training center; improved law enforcement; waterfowl
                                      identification training; development of target shooting facilities; and treatment of at least 80,000 acres of upland game habitat.

                                                                                             Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 117

                          TABLE 17-64 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.4, Michigan
                                 ITEM                                     1971-198o                          1981-2ooo                                2001-2020

                                 On-going
                                 Budgetsi                            $    7,955,071         2                   4,756,ooo                             4,895,170

                                 Additional
                                 Capital
                                 ExpenditureS3                            4,6oo,ooo                             6,500,000                             6,2oo,ooo
                                 Other4                                       100,000                               250oOOO                               250,000

                                 TOTAL                                  12,695;,o7i                           11,5o6,wo                             11,345,170

                                   'Projection of annual budgets Of State agencies for habitat manage ment, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                   'Includes State recreational bonding funds.
                                   'Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   4W ildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of38,OOO acres ofdeer and upland habitat; acquisition ofl6,500 acres ofwetiands;
                                   Canada goose introduction; development of 18,500 acres of wetlands habitat; improved law enforcement; managed waterfowl hunting
                                   programs; waterfowl identification training; and protection of 1,000 acres of scarce habitat.

                          TABLE 17-65 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.1, Michigan
                              ITEM                                          1971-1980                             1981-2000                                  2001-2020

                              On-going                              $ 2,093,0002                                  3,786.,ooo                               318091000
                              Budgeti

                              Additional Capital
                              Expenditures3                                3,100,000                              .4,025,000                               1,750,000
                              Other4                                           100,000                                 100,000                                 100,000

                              TOTAL                                        5,293,000                              7,911,000                                5,659,000

                                   'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                   2Includes State recreational bonding funds.
                                   31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   4W ildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                      "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 7,000 acres ofdeeryard; acquisition of 15,500 acres ofwetlands; development of
                                   8,400 acres of wetiand; improved law enforcement.

                          118 Appendix 17

                          TABLE 17-66 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 1.2, Michigan
                                    ITEM                                     1971-1980                        1981-2ooo                              2001-2020

                                    On-going
                                    Budgetsl                           $ 6,968,0002                          7,321,000                               7,664,6oo

                                    Additional
                                    Capital
                                    Expenditures3                           2,429,000                        4,ooo,,ooo                               3,500,000
                                    Other4                                        75,000                         100,000                                 100,000

                                    TOTAL                                   9,472,000                      11,421,000                               11,264,6oo

                                    @Projeetion of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman- Robertson funds am
                                    included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                    21neludes State recreational bonding funds.
                                    31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                    4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                        "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 15,500 acres of deer yards; acquisition of 46,000 acres of wetlands habitat;
                                    development of 13,000 acres of wetland; information and education programs and improved law enforcement programs.

                          TABLE 17-67 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.1, Michigan

                                    ITEM                                     1971-198o                            1981-2000                                 2001-2020

                                    On-going
                                    Budgetsi                            $   4,867,1502                        lo,,6ooooo                                 11,200,000

                                    Additional
                                    Capital
                                    Expenditures3                            6j,210,000                       15,500,000                                 14,500,000
                                    Other4                                       150,000                             300,000                                    375.,000

                                    TOTAL                                  111227,150                         26.9   4oo,wo                              26,075,000

                                    @Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                    included and are 17.5 percent of budget.
                                    @Includes State recreational bonding funds.
                                    31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                    4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.'
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 30,000 acres of deer and upland game habitat; acquisition of 8,000 acres of
                                    wetlands; development of 12,000 acres of wetlands; 70,000 acres of upland habitat management; improvement of a conservation training
                                    school; and management of Kirtland's warbler habitat.

                                                                                               Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 119

                          TABLE17-68 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio
                                 ITEM                                        1970                       1980                     2000                      2020

                                 On-going
                                 Budgetsi                             $ 5751000                        678,500                 929,500                  1,273,4oo

                                 Additional
                                 Capital
                                 Expenditures2                             275,000                 21438,000                   753,000                  IA76,000
                                 Other3                                    143,700                     169,2oo                 23214oo                     318,300

                                 TOTAL                                     993,700                 3,285,700               11914,900                    2@,667,700

                                   'Projection ofannu a) budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pitt man-Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 40 percent of budget.
                                   21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of 12,000 acres of wildlife areas; acquisition of 10,000 acres of Lake Erie
                                   marshes; acquisition of 3,000 acres of natural areas; development of the Lake Erie marshes for waterfowl production; private land wildlife
                                   management agreements; wildlife surveys and other resource inventories, information and education programs.
                                       Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $6,319,250; 1981-2000 , $16,605,500; 2001-2020
                                      $22,200,950.

                           TABLE17-69 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio
                                 ITEM                                    1970                           1980                         2000                    2020

                                 On-going
                                 Budgetsi                           $ 1851000                        215)300                        286,300                380,800

                                 Additional
                                 Capital                  2
                                 Expenditures                                                        617,.ooo                       64iooo                 969,ooo
                                 Other3                                    46,4oo                      53,8oo                         71,6oo                   95,,200

                                 TOTAL                                   231,000                     94o,loo                        998,900             1.,445,000

                                   'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, rose arch, etc., for wildlife. Pittman -Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 44 percent of budget.
                                   21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of 8,000 acres for wildlife areas; acquisition of 6,500 acres of natural areas;
                                   private land management programs; wildlife surveys and other resource inventories; information and education programs.
                                       Estimated "On-going Budget" cumulative totals for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,016,650; 1981-2000 = $5,051,500;
                                   2001-2020 = $6,718,250.

                            120 Appendix 17

                            TABLE 17-70 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.4, Pennsylvania
                                      ITR4                                      1970                         1980                        2000                       2020

                                      On-going
                                      Budgetsl                             $ 88,6oo                          477,200                   354,4oo                    7o8,8OO

                                      Additional
                                      Capital
                                      Expenditures2                               8;000                      400,000                   6oo,ooo                1,000,000
                                      Other3                                       5,000                        15,000                   30,000                     6o,ooo

                                      TOTAL                                   lol,6oo                        892,200                   984,4oo                1,768,8oo

                                      'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman -Robertson funds are
                                      included and are 25 percent of budget.
                                      21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                      3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                          "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition ofl,000 acres ofwildlife lands; 7,000 acresoffarm game cooperative projects;
                                      waterfowl development on 700 acres; development of land around Corps of Engineers reservoirs; improved law enforcement; construction of
                                      hunter safety visitor centers.
                                          Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" include the following: 1971-1980 = $3,023,300; 1981-2000 = $8;254,600; 2001-2020 = $10,809,200.

                           TABLE 17-71 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.4, New York
                                      ITEM                                      1970                           1980                        2000                       2020

                                      On-going
                                      Budgetsi                           $ 6o,ooo                           100,000                      200,000                    300,000

                                      Additional
                                      CaDital
                                      Expenditures2                           30,000                        IOOPOOO                      150,000                    200,000
                                      Other3                                     5,000                       15.,000                        30,000                     6o,ooo

                                      TOTAL                                   95,000                        215,000                      38o,ooo                    56o,ooo

                                      'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                      included and are 50 percent of budget.
                                      21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                      3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                          "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: agreements to provide access to private land on 95,000 acres of public land; agreements
                                      to provide for wildlife development of 75,000 acres of State and private lands; lease or purchase of unique and critical wildlife lands; additional
                                      legislation for protection of wetlands and other unique lands; enforcement of air, noise and water pollution regulations and enactment of
                                      additional regulations as necessary; promotion of better I andowner- hunter relationships.
                                          Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are: 1971-1980 = $820,000; 1981-2000 = $3,050,000; 2001-2020 = $7,050,000.

                                                                                               Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 121

                          TABLE 17-72 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.1, New York
                                   ITEM                                      1970                             1980                         2000                       2020

                                   On-going
                                   Budgetsi                            $ 90,000                             150,000                      300,000                    350.,000

                                   Additional
                                   Carital
                                   Expenditures2                                                            100,000                      150,000                    1751000
                                   Other3                                     5,000                         200,000                      250,000                    300,000

                                   TOTAL                                    95,000                          450,000                      700,000                    825,000

                                   'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat man agement,enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 50-66 percent of budget.
                                   2jtems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   @Wildlifc research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                        "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of 2,000 acres of wetlands; lease or purchase of 50,000 acres of unique and
                                   critical wildlife lands; acquisition of 4,400 acres of public hunting lands; management and development of 20,000 acres of State lands;
                                   agreement for access to 25,000 acres of private lands for hunting.
                                        Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $1,230,000; 1981-2000 = $4,575,000; 2001-2020
                                   $6,525,000.                                                                       -

                           TABLE 17-73 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.2, New York

                                   ITEM                                    1970                        1980                         2000                       2020

                                   On-going
                                   Budgetsi                         $ 255,000                         3402000                      4751000                    61o.,ooo

                                   Additional
                                   Capital                2                                           500,000                      475,000                    4oo,ooo
                                   Expenditures
                                   Other3                                   55,000                      70,000                       95,000                   120.,000

                                   TOTAL                                  310,000                     910,000                  i,o45,000                  1,130,000

                                   'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. P ittma n -Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 50 percent of budget.
                                   @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                        "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of approximately 20,000 acres ofwettands; management and development of
                                   15,000 acres of wetlands; purchase of access and hunting easements on 80,000 acres of private land; technical assistance provided for
                                   developing wildlife potential on 90,000 acres of private land; acquisition of 15,000 acres of game management lands; construction of trails,
                                   parking areas and related facilities on state lands.
                                        Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $3,017,500; 1981-2000 = $8,217,500; 2001-2020
                                   $10,917,500.

                          122 Appendix 17

                          TABLE 17-74 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.3, New York
                                   ITEM                                 1970                           198o                     2000                      2020

                                   On-going
                                   Budgetsl                         $ 75,000                          100,000                  4oo,ooo                 500,000

                                   Additional
                                   Capital
                                   Expenditures2                                                  11000,000                     600,000                300,000
                                   Other3                                 5,000                         10,000                    15,000                 20,000

                                   TOTAL                               80,0W                     1, 110, OW                1,015,000                  820, OW

                                   'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are
                                   included and are 40 percent of budget.
                                   21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources.
                                   SWildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.
                                       "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: public land acquisition and leasing programs emphasizing wetlands preservation
                                   totaling 45,500 acres; development and reh@bilitation of wetlands to realize their fish and wildlife production potential.
                                       Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $887,500; 1981-2000 = $5,150,000; 2001-2020
                                   $9,050,000.

                                                            SUMMARY

                    There is a growing concern among natural           tion is most intense. The highest value hab-
                  resource managers about the effects of pro-          itat, wetlands, is most affected because de-
                  jected population increases. The future of           struction of shore wetlands is proceeding at
                  wildlife in particular is very dim if population     an alarming rate.
                  projections for the next 50 years materialize.         Some trends in wildlife habitat and species
                  Planning procedures intended to provide for          levels are indirectly related to man's presence.
                  wildlife will be paper exercises if the popula-      Maturing forest succession in the northern
                  tion of the Great Lakes Basin doubles. In            planning subareas of the Basin is a result of
                  terms of environmental quality and the basic         fewer forest fires and low demand for timber
                  human needs for water, air and food, optimal         in remote areas. As the forest matures and
                  human population levels have been reached in         progresses toward a greater homogeneity, its
                  some areas and far exceeded in many urban            value to wildlife declines. Deer populations
                  areas.                                               are declining in many northern areas for these
                    The problem of wildlife now and in the fu-         reasons.
                  ture is people. Unless the planning effort is          Other trends that reduce the value of hab-
                  directed toward methods of retarding popula-         itat are not the result of structural modifica-
                  tion growth (such as tax incentives, limits on       tion or degradation, but are changes in land-
                  the number of persons per square mile, and           use practices. Clean farming is one of these, a
                  strict zoning), rather than attempting to            practice that diminishes the basic habitat re-
                  accommodate and thereby encourage in-                quirement of farm-game species by removal of
                  creased population, attempts to provide for          fence rows, trees, and odd areas to facilitate
                  wildlife resources are utterly futile. Most im-      the operation of larger, more efficient farm
                  portant is the problem of trying to provide          equipment.
                  environmental quality.                                 The total 75 million acres of 1970 wildlife
                    All wildlife problems are directly or indi-        habitat were composed of 50 percent farm-
                  rectly related to the population problem and         game habitat, 49 percent forest-game habitat,
                  will become more complicated and more seri-          and one percent waterfowl habitat.
                  ous as the population increases. In nearly all         The white-tailed deer is the Basin's most
                  of the Great Lakes planning subareas, de-            important game species. Deer are found in all
                  mands for consumptive and nonconsumptive             of the planning subareas and are at high popu-
                  wildlife uses are projected to be at least double    lation levels in five planning subareas.
                  the current demand. Considering the fact that          The Basin's principal waterfowl areas are
                  total Basin wildlife demand already exceeds          shore and inland marshes of western Lake
                  the supply (if quantified in acres of wildlife       Erie; Lake St. Clair, Saginaw Bay, Michigan;
                  habitat), and that the supply will be greatly        Green Bay, Wisconsin; inland southern Wis-
                  diminished in the future, expecting to accom-        consin marshes including Horicon; Lake On-
                  modate any multiple of the current demand is         tario and St. Lawrence River marshes; St.
                  absurd. All available wildlife habitat is            Marys River; eastern inland Upper Michigan
                  needed now, and it will not be greatly ex-           Peninsula marshes and southwestern Michi-
                  panded short of catastrophic geologic change         gan marshes.
                  such as drastic changes in lake levels and             The ring-necked pheasant is an important,
                  their related effects on lakeshore marshes.          but declining game bird in the Basin. Its de-
                                                                       cline is closely tied to land-use changes.
                                                                         The eastern timber wolf, the Basin's most
                  Status of Wildlife Resources (1970)                  colorful wildlife species, is considered rare and
                                                                       endangered. Other rare and endangered
                    Accelerated attrition of habitat is occurring      species include the greater sandhill crane,
                  over most of the Basin. It is worse in the           bald eagle, Kirtland's warbler, and the north-
                  southern tier of Basin States where urbaniza-        ern greater prairie chicken.

                                                                   123

                  124 Appendix 17

                    Other species of interest and importance in-       of assessing this percentage Basinwide would
                  clude black bear, bobcat, Canada lynx, osprey,       require a tremendous additional amount of
                  snowshoe hare, pine marten, fisher, bobwhite         work. It was estimated that these shifts in
                  quail, common loon, mourning dove, prairie           demand are self-balancing (particularly
                  sharp-tailed grouse, turkey, moose, ruffed           within the Basin) and that user projections
                  grouse, woodcock and the cottontail rabbit. It       will not be adversely affected.
                  should be pointed out that the game and fur-           Throughout the appendix, heavy emphasis
                  bearer population trends and influencing en-         has been placed on consumptive use of wild-
                  vironmental factors were felt to be generally        life, while it has been recognized that noncon-
                  indicative of those for non-game species as-         sumptive use is of equal or greater impor-
                  sociated with similar habitat types. The use of      tance. Current inform ation-gathering
                  game and furbearers data throughout the re-          methodology is attuned to hunter days and
                  port reflects readily available data and is not      harvest. Therefore nonconsumptive wildlife
                  intended to emphasize this relatively small          use information is difficult to obtain, and the
                  group of wildlife species.                           best available index of this use is hunter in-
                    Many facets of the Basin wildlife picture          formation.
                  give reason for hope that things can be better.        In 1970 there were 5,048,600 wildlife users
                  In spite of rising land costs, fish and game         (consumptive and nonconsumptive combined)
                  agencies are continuing impressive land ac-          in the Basin. Huntable habitat base was
                  quisition programs, and unique and scenic            46,469,100 acres, 11,361,750 of which were pub-
                  areas are being purchased and protected in a         licly owned, providing 9.2 acres per user. Dur-
                  number of ways. Some wildlife species are at         ing the 50-year study period, 4,138,700 acres of
                  stable levels, some are more numerous than           huntable habitat will be lost to urban expan-
                  ever before. Wildlife research and manage-           sion. During this period, wildlife users are pro-
                  ment information is becoming more available,         jected to increase to 6,655,200. Public lands
                  and a great public concern for improving en-         will increase by at least 600,000 acres during
                  vironmental quality has developed. The first         the same period. Acres per user at the end of
                  sign of a trend away from more and bigger            the study period (2020) are projected to be 6.4.
                  structural projects by public works agencies is
                  the interest in green belts and environmental
                  corridors. If these should become important,         General Basinwide Recommendations
                  the benefits will be a reduction of river habitat
                  destruction as well as preservation of open            Recommended methods of solving Basin
                  space.                                               problems and meeting demands vary widely
                                                                       with the planning subareas. Management rec-
                                                                       ommendations for the northern, sparsely-
                  Future Use of Wildlife Resources (1980 to 2020)      settled planning subareas are closely related
                                                                       to habitat management plans, while the
                    Section 3 presented procedures for pro-            southern area recommendations are related
                  jecting future Basin hunting gross demands,          to human problems.
                  net demands, and needed acres in the Basin,            The single most important wildlife problem
                  as well as procedures for estimating noncon-         in the Great Lakes Basin is the continuing loss
                  sumptive use. Projected license sales are con-       of habitat. Especially critical is the loss of
                  sidered the best indication of future demands.       waterfowl habitat (wetlands) to natural
                  Present license sales in the Basin are closely       causes, through water level changes and
                  related to the population density and to acres       wind- and water-caused erosion, and to the
                  of opportunity per person in each of the 15          progress of civilization through dredging and
                  planning subareas. License sales projections         filling for navigation, dumps, housing, indus-
                  were therefore based on these two factors.           tries, waste treatment facilities, and trans-
                    A problem in the development of user pro-          portation. It is the opinion of this work group
                  jections that was not resolved was assessment        that preservation and restoration of wetlands
                  of Basin and inter-Basin ingress and egress.         and their management as viable ecosystems
                  Separate projections were made for each of           in a manner that is most productive of fish and
                  the 15 planning subareas. A significant. per-        wildlife is in the mutual interest of both the
                  centage of projected demands for one plan-           humans and animals. Therefore, of the rec-
                  ning subarea will actually be satisfied in           ommendations in this report, the one recom-
                  another, but development of a sound method           mending acquisition and management of the

                                                                                                       Summary 125

                  remaining wetlands in the Basin should re-           (Small Watershed Program) to include the cost
                  ceive the highest priority by local, regional,       of additional land rights together with the cost
                  State, and Federal agencies.                         of development for wildlife use for mitigation
                    Some of the major recommendations of this          as a construction cost to be cost-shared at the
                  report are:                                          same rate as the structural measures creating
                    (1) habitat management programs in                 the need for mitigation
                  northern planning subareas to retard forest            (9) continuation and improvement of the
                  succession                                           Crop Land Adjustment Program (CAP) and
                    (2) strict regulation of off-road vehicles to      the Rural Environmental Assistance Pro-
                  prevent damage to fragile habitats                   gram (REAP) of the U.S. Department of Ag-
                    (3) intensive management of the timber             riculture
                  wolf and reintroduction into suitable habitat          (10) provision of better legislation to pre-
                    (4) immediate purchase of all high value           vent stream and lakeshore filling
                  wetlands                                               (11) provision of more public access to pri-
                    (5) protection of wetlands and other               vate land
                  unique areas through other means where pur-
                  chase is not possible                                  (12) improvement of the dissemination of
                    (6) acquisition or protection of all other         wildlife research information in order to facili-
                  critical habitat                                     tate planning
                    (7) enactment of     better water pollution          (13) extension of State or Federal protec-
                  laws and provision of more strict enforcement        tion.to all wildlife species not now protected
                    (8) amendment of Public Law 83-566                 such as reptiles and amphibians

                                                            GLOSSARY

                  actual hunters-resident, non-resident                 correlation-the degree of interdependence of
                    licensed hunters and unlicensed hunters.              two or more variables.

                  agriculturalized-conversion of undeveloped            cropland-land currently tilled, including
                    land to crop or livestock production.                 cropland harvested, crop failure, summer
                                                                          fallow, idle cropland, cropland in cover crops
                  base year-1970.                                         or soil improvement crops not harvested or
                                                                          pastured, rotation pasture, and cropland
                  big game-a general term used for large                  being prepared for crops or newly seeded
                    mammals, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and          crops.
                    black bear, declared legal game by State
                    government and regulated by seasons                 dabbling duck-habitually feeds off bottom in
                    and/or permits.                                       shallow water by tipping forward and sub-
                                                                          merging head and part of body; rarely dives
                  bog-an area of soft, wet, spongy ground con-            for food.
                    sisting chiefly of decayed or decaying moss
                    and other vegetable matter. In the Great            density-the number of animals per acre or
                    Lakes States there are commonly peat bogs             square mile in a given population as used in
                    that most frequently occur in basins rep-             Tables 17-2 through 17-23. It is the density
                    resenting sites of former lakes, or as forma-         of a species relative to conditions in each
                    tions partially or completely surrounding             planning subarea and does not have uni-
                    existing lakes.                                       form meaning across the Basin.

                  channelization-the process of mechanically            diving duck-habitually feeds by diving com-
                    altering natural stream characteristics to            pletely under in deep water to obtain food.
                    increase the water-carrying capacity by
                    clearing, excavating, enlarging, realigning,        deer yard-a well-defined area, usually in
                    lining, and reshaping a channel and its               conifers where deer concentrate during
                    banks; also known as "channel modifica-               times of heep snow, forming well-used travel
                    tion."                                                lanes. This condition usually results in
                                                                          overbrowsing of the vegetation.
                  clean farming-more intensive farming prac-
                    tices which utilize all available crop produc-      demand (wildlife)-the estimated desire for
                    ing land by removing fence rows, field wind-          the use of wildlife resources, usually ex-
                    breaks, hedgerows, and "odd" areas to                 pressed in man-days.
                    facilitate maneuvering of larger machines.
                                                                        densities (wildlife)-the relationship between
                  climax forest-the final or stable forest plant-         wildlife and space, often measured in units
                    community in a successional series; a self-           per acre or units per square mile.
                    perpetuating forest community which is in
                    equilibrium with the physical environment;          environmental corridor-a strip of land de-
                    in the northern portion of the Great Lakes            signed to maintain the natural characteris-
                    Basin, a spruce-fir combination is the                tics of an area, usually adjacent to urban
                    climax type, while in the south a beech-              areas or bordering streams and rivers.
                    maple combination is considered the climax
                    type.                                               farm game-wildlife species that are princi-
                                                                          pally associated with semi-open land areas
                  consumptive use-the use of awildlife resource           with a variety of vegetative cover, such as
                    which results in a decrease of the supply (see        the cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheasant
                    harvest).                                             and mourning dove.
                                                                     127

                   128 Appendix 17

                         1

                   farm-game habitat-land that contains a vari-           be adequately represented by a straight line
                     ety of vegetative types such as cropland,            when plotted.
                     pasture, idle land, and small woodlots.
                                                                        man-day-a unit of use attributed to an indi-
                   fauna-the animal species of a given region.            vidual partaking in an experience during
                                                                          any part of a 24-hour day.
                   flora-the plant species of a given region.
                                                                        marsh-a treeless swamp in which the vegeta-
                   forest game-wildlife species that are princi-          tion is predominantly grassy or reedy and
                     pally associated with wooded areas, such as          which may or may not have standing water.
                     the ruffed grouse, white-tailed deer and
                     black bear.                                        mean-an average; the sum of a given set of
                                                                          values divided by the number of values.
                   furbearers-wildlife species that are economi-
                     cally important due to the value of their fur,     median-a value in a given set of values below
                     such as muskrat, mink, fox and beaver.               and above which there are the same number
                                                                          of values.
                   green belt-an area of land around or in a city
                     or town where development is severely re-          monoculture-agricultural practice of grow-
                     stricted to maintain the natural character           ing only one crop on large tracts of land year
                     of the country.                                      after year.

                   gross demand-total demand generated by               multiple regression-the degree to which one
                     wildlife users during a given calendar year,         dependent variable increases or decreases
                     usually expressed in man-days.                       with the change in two or more independent
                                                                          variables.
                   habitat-the natural environment of an ani-
                     mal; the area where it lives.                      natural area-an area which contains unique
                                                                          or representative flora and fauna of a re-
                   harvest-total annual take of game from a               gion.
                     given area.
                                                                        needs-unsatisfied demands or deficit in op-
                   hunter day-any part of a day spent hunting             portunity; also known as net demand.
                     by an individual.
                                                                        net demand-the difference between projected
                   hunting-the act of pursuing game for sport or          gross demands and projected opportunity,
                     food.                                                usually expressed in man-days.

                   land-use change-the conversion of land from          nonconsumptive use-use of wildlife habitat
                     one use to another, such as from crops to            which does not involve the act of killing
                     residential or forest to crops.                      game and furbearing animals. It usually
                                                                          means the observing or photographing of
                   latent demand-that desire to hunt or enjoy             wildlife and its habitat.
                     nature which is inherent in the total popula-
                     tion, but is not fulfilled because of lack of      non-resident hunter-a person who resides
                     facilities, leisure time, or other pertinent         outside the State in which he hunts.
                     factors.
                   latent hunter-those persons with an inherent         opportunity-land upon which an individual
                     desire to hunt, but prevented from hunting           may gain access to and expect to realize a
                     for one or more reasons such as lack of time,        consumptive or nonconsumptive wildlife
                     money, or available facility.                        experience.

                   linear regression-the degree to which a de-          other land-farmsteads, farmlanes, idle land,
                     pendent variable will increase or decrease           ditchbanks, fencerows, and other areas not
                     with a unit change of an independent vari-           classified as cropland, pasture, forest and
                     able, resulting in an association which can          woodland, and urban and built-up areas.

                                                                                                         Glossary 129

                  participant-an individual who enages in the           supply-the amount of wildlife or habitat
                    uses of wildlife resources for consumptive or         available for either hunting or nonhunting
                    nonconsumptive purposes.                              use.

                  participant rate-the number of times per year         swamp-an area where the soil is saturated
                    that an individual actually participates in a         with water throughout most of the year, but
                    hunting or a nonconsumptive wildlife use              not actually submerged. It usually has
                    experience.                                           woody as well as herbaceous plants.

                  pasture land-land in grass or other long-term         target years-1980, 2000, 2020.
                    forage that is used primarily for grazing.
                                                                        unique area-an unusual, extraordinary, or
                  prey species-animals which serve as food for            rare example of a natural occurrence includ-
                    other animals. They are usually the smaller           ing geologic formations, lakeshores, unique
                    and more numerous species such as mice                wildlife habitats and unique plant com-
                    and rabbits.                                          munities.

                  plant succession (ecological succession)-the          unique ecological area-see unique area.
                    orderly process of plant community change
                    from a pioneer stage to a relatively stable         unlicensed hunters-sportsmen who are
                    and mature community (climax). Typically,             exempted in some States from license re-
                    there are five stages: bare field, grassland,         quirements including landowners hunting
                    grass shrub, intermediate forest, climax              on their own land, active duty servicemen,
                    forest. On prairie soil, grass is the climax          and disabled persons.
                    stage and only four successive stages are
                    involved.                                           wading birds-any of the long-legged birds
                                                                          that wade the shallows and marshes seeking
                  potential hunters-actual hunters plus latent            food, such as herons and egrets.
                    hunters.
                                                                        waterfowl-usually confined to the swimming
                  projections-a forecast based on certain as-             water birds such as ducks, geese and swans.
                    sumptions.
                                                                        wetlands-lowlands covered with shallow and
                  raptorial birds-birds of prey, eagles, hawks            sometimes temporary or intermittent wa-
                    and owls.                                             ters. They are divided into eight types in our
                                                                          region: Type 1-seasonally flooded basins or
                  resident-a person who hunts within the State            flats; the soil is covered with water, or is
                    in which he resides.                                  waterlogged, during variable seasonal
                                                                          periods but usually is well-drained during
                  scenic area-a picturesque natural area which            much of the growing season; Type 2-inland
                    is considered pleasing to the eye.                    fresh meadows; the soil usually is without
                                                                          standing water during most of the growing
                  shorebirds-any of a number of birds that fre-           season, but is waterlogged within at least a
                    quent the shores of bodies of water, such as          few inches of its surface; Type 3-inland
                    the sandpipers, woodcock, phalaropes and              shallow fresh marshes; the soil is usually
                    others.                                               waterlogged during the growing season;
                                                                          often it is covered with as much as six inches
                  significant-used for stating results in an ap-          or more of water; Type 4-inland deep fresh
                    propriate statistical test. When the proba-           marshes; the soil is covered with six inches
                    bility of the occurrence of a particular event        to three feet or more of water during the
                    is 19 in 20 or more (P = 0.95), the probability       growing season; Type 5-inland open fresh
                    is termed significant. When the probability           water; shallow ponds and reservoirs where
                    is 99 in 100 or more (P = 0.99), it is termed         water is usually less than 10 feet deep and is
                    highly significant.                                   fringed with a border of emergent vegeta-
                                                                          tion; Type 6-shrub swamps; the soil is usu-
                  small game-small animals hunted for sport or            ally waterlogged during the growing season,
                    food, such as cottontail rabbits, gray squir-         and is often covered with as much as six
                    rels and ring-necked pheasants.                       inches of water; vegetation includes alders,

                 130 Appendix 17

                    willows, buttonbush, dogwoods and                  ally waterlogged and supports a spongy cov-
                    swamp-privet; Type 7-wooded swamps; the            ering of mosses; bogs occur mostly in shal-
                    soil is waterlogged at least to within a few       low lake basins on flat uplands, and along
                    inches of its surface during the growing sea-      sluggish streams.
                    son, and is often covered with as much as one
                    foot of water; trees include tamarack, ar-
                    borvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple        wildlife-wild game and all other animal life
                    and black ash; Type 8-bogs; the soil is usu-       existing in a wild state.

                                                        BIBLIOGRAPHY

                  Bechtold, Hilde L., "Waterfowl Relationships                                    "Various Data Con-
                  on the Great Lakes," United States Depart-           cerning Wildlife Resources," Springfield, Il-
                  ment of the Interior, Bureau of Sport                linois.
                  Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., U.S.
                  Government Printing Office, March 1971.              Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Needs
                                                                       Committee, "Illinois Soil & Water Conserva-
                  Bellrose, Frank C., "Waterfowl Migration             tion Needs Inventory," University of Illinois,
                  Corridors East of the Rocky Mountains in the         College of Agriculture, Champaign-Urbana,
                  United States," Biological Notes No. 61, Ur-         Illinois, August 1962.
                  bana, Illinois, Illinois Natural History Survey,
                  June 1968.                                           Indiana Department of Conservation, "41st
                                                                       Annual Report," Springfield, Illinois, June
                  Boyce, Arlow P., "Results of the Cropland Ad-        1959.
                  justment Program First Year in Michigan,"
                  Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of            Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
                  Conservation, Game Division, 1967.                   "Master Plan for Acquisition and Develop-
                                                                       ment, Supplement Number One," In-
                  Dahlgren, R. B., and Linder, R. L., "Eggshell        dianapolis, Indiana, July 1965.
                  Thickness in Pheasants Given Dieldrin,"
                  Journal of Wildlife Management, 34 (1), 1970.        Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
                                                                       Division of Fish and Game, "Various Data
                  Gillett, James W., (Editor), "The Biological         Concerning Wildlife Resources," Indianapolis,
                  Impact of Pesticides in the Environment,"            Indiana.
                  Environmental Health Sciences Center, Cor-
                  vallis, Ore., Oregon State University, 1970.         Lindsey, Alton A., Nichols, Stanley A., and
                                                                       Schmelz, Damian V., "Natural Areas in In-
                  Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes            diana and Their Preservation," Indiana
                  Basin Framework Study, Appendix 16,                  Natural Areas Survey, Department of Biolog-
                  Drainage, Ann Arbor, Michigan.                       ical Sciences, Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue
                                                                       University, April, 1969.
                                              Great Lakes Basin
                  Framework Study, Appendix 19, Economic               Loucks, Orie L., "Scientific Areas In Wiscon-
                  and Demographic Studies, Ann Arbor, Michi-           sin," Wisconsin Academy Review, Spring,
                  gan.                                                 1967.

                  Hamilton, Max and Hyer, Russell, "Wetlands           MacMullan, Ralph A., "The Case Against
                  of Northern Indiana," Indiana Department of          Hard Pesticides," Michigan Conservation,
                  Natural Resources, Pittm an- Robertson Proj-         January-February, 1968.
                  ect 2-R, Indianapolis, Indiana.
                                                                       Mann, Grady E., "Wetlands Inventory of Min-
                  Hickey, J. J., and Anderson, D. W., "Chlori-         nesota," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of
                  nated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in           River Basin Studies, April 1955.
                  Raptorial and Fish Eating Birds," Science,
                  162 (3850), 1968.                                                                 "Wetlands Inven-
                                                                       tory of Wisconsin," Minneapolis, Minnesota,
                  Illinois Department of Conservation, "Out-           Office of River Basin Studies, February, 1955.
                  door Recreation in Illinois," Springfield, Il-
                  linois.                                              Martin, Alexander C., Nelson, Arnold and Zim,

                                                                    131

                  132 Appendix 17

                                                                                                 it
                  Herbert S., "American Wildlife and Plants, A                                    Various Data Con-
                  Guide To Wildlife Food Habits," New York,           cerning Wildlife' Resources," St. Paul, Min-
                  Dover Publications, Inc. 1951.                      nesota.

                  McCloskey, John W., "Correlation and Regres-        New York Conservation Needs Committee,
                  sion Techniques," Analysis Note 67-1,               "New York State Soil and Water Conservation
                  Washington, D.C., Office for Laboratory Man-        Needs Inventory," Albany, New York, 1962.
                  agement, Office of the Director of Defense Re-
                  search and Engineering, October 1967.               New York Department of Environmental
                                                                      Conservation, Division of Fish and Game,
                  Mikula, Edward J., "Importance of Celeron Is-       "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re-
                  land to Waterfowl," Lansing, Michigan,              sources," Avon and Watertown, New York.
                  Michigan Department of Conservation, Game
                  Division, March 13, 1968.                           New York State Conservation Department,
                                                                      "New York State Fish and Game Law," Al-
                  Michigan Conservation      Needs Committee,         bany, New York, 1969.
                  "An -Inventory of Michigan Soil and Water
                  Conservation Needs," East Lansing, Michi-           Ohio Department of Natural Resources, "Ohio
                  gan, October 1962.                                  Fishing and Hunting Locations," publication
                                                                      77, Columbus, Ohio, October 1968.
                  Michigan Department of Conservation, "Re-
                  turning the Pine Marten to Michigan," Report                                   Division of Wildlife,
                  No. 2199, Lansing, Michigan, September              "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re-
                  1958.                                               sources," Columbus, Ohio.

                                             "20th Biennial Re-       Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study
                  port 1959-1961," Lansing, Michigan, 1961.           Committee, Ohio River Basin Comprehensive
                                                                      Survey, Appendix G, Fish and Wildlife Re-
                                             "24th Biennial Re-       sources, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Army Engineer
                  port 1967-1968," Lansing, Michigan, 1968.           Division, Ohio River, Undated.

                                           , "25th Biennial Re-       Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs
                  port 1969-1971," Lansing, Michigan, 1971.           Committee, "Ohio Soil and Water Conserva-
                                                                      tion Needs Inventory," Columbus, Ohio, De-
                  Michigan Department of Natural Resources,           cember 1961.
                  "Michigan Recreation Plan: 1970," Lansing,
                  Michigan, Office of Planning Services, 1970.        Palmer, Walter L., "An Analysis of the Public
                                                                      Use of Southern Michigan Game and Rec-
                                            "Various Data Con-        reation Areas," Research and Development
                  cerning Wildlife Resources," Lansing, Michi-        Report No. 102, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan
                  gan.                                                Department of Conservation, March 1967.

                  Minnesota Conservation Needs Committee,             Panzner, Robert E., "Wetlands Inventory of
                  "Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation              Michigan," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of
                  Needs Inventory," St. Paul, Minnesota, Min-         River Basin Studies, March 1955.
                  nesota Agricultural Extension Service, 1962.
                                                                      Pennsylvania Conservation Needs Commit-
                  Minnesota Department of Conservation, "A            tee, "Pennsylvania Soil and Water Conserva-
                  Deer Management Program for Minnesota,"             tion Needs Inventory," Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
                  St. Paul, Minnesota.                                vania, Pennsylvania Association of Soil Con-
                                                                      servation Districts Directors.
                                            "Minnesota Outdoor
                  Recreation Plan 1968," St. Paul, Minnesota,                                    "Various Data Con-
                  June 1969.                                          cerning Wildlife Resources," Harrisburg and
                                                                      Franklin, Pennsylvania.
                                             "Minnesota Plan-
                  for Emergency Winter Care of Deer and for           Pennsylvania Game Commission, "Hunting in
                  Deer Yard Improvement," St. Paul, Min-              Northwestern Pennsylvania," reprinted from
                  nesota,1965.                                        Pennsylvania Game News, 1967.

                                                                                                      Bibliography 133

                  Porter, R. D. and Wiemeyer, S. N., "Dieldrin                                       "Narrative Report,
                  and DDT: Effects on Sparrow Hawk Eggshells             Nicolet National Forest," Milwaukee, Wiscon-
                  and Reproduction," Science, 165 (3889), 1969.          sin.

                  Radtke, Robert and Byelich, Jon, "Kirtland's                                       "Report for Great
                  Warbler Management," Lansing, Michigan,                Lakes Basin Study, Hector Land Use Area,
                  U.S.D.A. Forest Service and Michigan De-               New York," Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
                  partment of Conservation, February 1963.
                                                                                                   , "Superior National
                  Risebrough, R.W., Florant, G.L., and Berger,           Forest Narrative Report, Fiscal Year 1969,"
                  D.D., "Organochlorine Pollutants in Pere-              Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
                  grines and Merlins Migrating through Wis-
                  consin," Canadian Field Naturalist, 84 (3),            U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
                  1970.                                                  Wildlife Service, "Fish and Wildlife as Related
                                                                         to Water Quality of the Lake Erie Basin," July
                  Rounds, Burton W., "Wetlands Inventory of              1967.
                  Ohio," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of River
                  Basin Studies, April 1955.                                                        "Fish and Wildlife as
                                                                         Related to Water Quality of the Lake Huron
                  Shaw, Samuel P. and Fredine, C. Gordon,                Basin," June 1969.
                  "Wetlands of the United States," Circular 39,
                  United States Department of the Interior,                                         "Fish and Wildlife as
                  Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River             Related to Water Quality of the'Lake Michi-
                  Basin Studies, 1956.                                   gan Basin," March 1966.

                  Stickel, L. F., Chura, N. J., Stewart, P. A., Men-                               , "Fish and Wildlife as
                  zie, C.M., Prouty, R.M., and Reichel, W.L.,            Related to Water Quality of the Lake Ontario
                  "Bald Eagle Pesticide Relations," Transac-             Basin," December 1969.
                  tions of the 31st North American Wildlife and
                  Natural Resources Conference, 1966.                                               "Fish and Wildlife as
                                                                         Related to Water Quality of the Lake Superior
                  Stuewer, F.W., "Endangered Species Pro-                Basin," June 1970.
                  gram," Lansing, Michigan, Michigan De-
                  partment of Conservation, July 1969.                                              "Water Levels of the
                                                                         Great Lakes," September 1963.
                  U.S. Bureau of Census, "County and City Data
                  Book, 1967, A Statistical Abstract Supple-             U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
                  ment," Washington, D.C., U.S. Government               Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
                  Printing Office, 1967.                                 and Wildlife, "National Wildlife Refuges in the
                                                                         North Central Region, Region 3," Refuge
                  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-            Leaflet 96-R2, May 1968,
                  vice, "Annual Wildlife Report, Narrative Sec-
                  tion, Chequamegon National Forest, Fiscal                                          "Fish and Wildlife
                  Year 1969," Milwaukee, Wisconsin.                      Resources, Genesee Basin."

                                             , "Annual Wildlife          United States Department of the Interior, Na-
                  Report, Narrative Section, Eastern Region              tional Park Service, "Our Fourth Shore,"
                  (9). Fiscal Year 1969," Milwaukee, Wisconsin.          Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Area Sur-
                                                                         vey, 1959.
                                                 "Areas       Under
                  Forest Administration, Great Lakes Basin                                           "Remaining Shore-
                  Study, Great Lakes Region, as of June 30,1969          line Opportunities in: Minnesota, Wisconsin,
                  by Subarea and County," Milwaukee, Wiscon-             Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsyl-
                  sin.                                                   vania, New York," Great Lakes Shoreline
                                                                         Recreation Area Survey, 1959.
                                              44
                                               Hiawatha National
                  Forest Narrative Report 1968-1969, Annual              Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive
                  Wildlife Report," Milwaukee, Wisconsin.                Basin Study Coordinating Committee, Upper

                134 Appendix 17

                Mississippi River, Comprehensive Basin      Recreation Plan," Madison, Wisconsin 1968.
                Study, Appendix L, Fish and Wildlife, 1969.
                                                            Wisconsin Scientific Areas Preservation
                Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  Council, "Wisconsin Scientific Areas," 1968.
                "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re-
                sources," Madison, Wisconsin.               Young, Howard, "A Consideration of Insec-
                                                            ticide Effects on Hypothetical Avian Popula-
                                       "Wisconsin Outdoor   tions," Ecology, 49 (5), 1968.

                                                               ADDENDUM

                                                               Methodology

                        Hunting Demand

                          Our projections of hunting demand (hunter days) and wildlife land needed (acres) are
                        based on mathematical calculations in which the starting points are human population
                        density and acres of wildlife habitat. Through a process of statistical analysis, an
                    0   equation was developed for converting inventory data into gross and net hunting
                        demand using a combination of numerical constants and estimated parameters. The
                        following equation,
                                             Y = constant - constant (Xi) + constant (X2)
                                             Y = .094879 - .0006771 Xi              + .006208 X2
                        is the result of a computerized multiple regression analysis, based on population density
                        and acres of habitat per capita, where Y = the number of resident licensed hunters per
                        capita; X1 = the population per square mile; and X2 = the acres of habitat per capita.
                          The following outline of data showing how this methodology was applied in Planning
                        Subarea 4.2 will serve as an example for all planning subareas in the Great Lakes Basin
                        Framework Study.

                                            Basic Data For Planning Subarea 4.2

                        Population in 1960                     1,566,000      City and County Data Book, 1967
                        Projected population in 1980           1,963,000      GLBFS Tech. Report No. 19-11-P-2,
                                                                              Preliminary Economic Projections for
                                                                              OBE Economic Areas and Great Lakes
                                                                              Basin Commission Planning Subareas
                                                                              for the Great Lakes Region, May 1969
                        Projected population in 2000           2,474,000      Ibid.
                        Projected population in 2020           3,116,000      Ibid.
                        Area, square miles                          8,515     City and County Data Book, 1967
                        1960 Resident licensed hunters            161,336     Compiled from data supplied by each
                                                                              State in planning subarea
                        1960 Nonresident licensed                   1,182     0.73 percent of the resident licensed
                          hunters                                             hunters in this planning subarea in 1960
                        1960 Unlicensed hunters                     6,453     4 percent of the resident hunters in this
                                                                              planning subarea in 1960
                        1960 Acres of wildlife habitat         5,777,500      Soil and Water Conservation Needs In-
                                                                              ventory (for each State)
                        Projected acres of wildlife            5,688,800      Preliminary information provided by
                          habitat in 1980                                     Economic Research Service, USDA
                        Projected acres of wildlife            5,587,200      Ibid.
                          habitat in 2000
                        Projected acres in wildlife            5,480,500      Ibid.
                          habitat in 2020

                                                                         135

                  136 Appendix 17

                       Acres of hunting opportunity            14,649    Preliminary information supplied by
                         added 1970-2020                                 representatives of State Depts. of Natu-
                                                                         ral Resources
                       Acres of hunting opportunity           297,000    Preliminary information provided by
                         lost 1970-2020                                  Economic Research Service, USDA

                                                           Computations

                       Computation of projected X1 and X2 factors
                                                   Xi (Pop./sq. mi.)         X2 (Habit at/c apita)
                                    Year 1980      1,963,000  = 230.53       5,688,800  = 2.898 acres
                                                       8,515                 1,963,000
                                   Year 2000       2,474,000  = 290-55       5,587,200  = 2.258 acres
                                                       8,515                 2,474,000
                                    Year 2020      3,116,000  = 365.94       5,480,500  = 1.759 acres
                                                       8,515                 3,116,000

                       Computation of adjustment factor
                       Correction of projected 1960 resident licensed hunters based on actual 1960 hunters
                       from Sample License Table.
                                         X, = 1960 Population = 1,566,000 = 183.91
                                                Acres, Sq. Miles         8,515
                                         X2 =   Acres Habitat in 1960 = 5,777,500 = 3.689
                                                 Population in 1960          1,566,000
                                         Y =    .094879 - .00006771 X, + .006208 X2
                                         Y =    .094879 - .00006771 (183.91) + .006208 (3.689)
                                         Y =    .105330
                                                1960 actual Y = .103         .103 - .98095
                                                                             .105

                       Computation of number of 1980, 2000, and 2020 resident licensed hunters
                              Year 1980    Y = [.094879 - .000,06771 (230.53) + .006208 (2.898)] .98095
                                           Y  =  [.094879 - .015607 + .017991].98095
                                           Y  =  .0954101
                                           Y  X  1980 projected population       1980 resident licensed hunters
                                                      .0954101 x 1,963,000       187,290
                              Year 2000    Y  =  [.094879 - .00006771 (290.55) + .006208 (2.258)] .98095
                                           Y  =  [.094879 - .019670 + .0140181 .98095
                                           Y  =  .087527
                                           Y  x  2000 projected population = resident licensed hunters
                                                      .087527 x 2,474,000 = 216,542
                              Year 2020 Y     =  [.094879 - .00006771 (365.94) + .006208 (1.759)] .98095
                                           Y  =  [.094879 - .024774 + .0109201 .98095
                                           Y  =  .079481
                                           Y  X  2020 projected population = resident licensed hunters
                                                      .079481 x 3,116,000 = 247,662

                                                                                                 Addendum 137

                     Computation of Latent Demand
                     The percent of latent demand in 1960 (15.72%) was considered to be constant for the
                     projection years. To compute this percentage, a factor of .0162 was borrowed from the
                     Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey.
                          Year 1960
                                      .0162 x year population = number of latent demand hunters
                                      .0162 x 1,566,000 = 25,369 latent demand hunters
                                      25,369 (latent hunters)   - 15.72 percent
                                      161,336 (resident licensed'hunters)
                          Year 1980
                                      187,290 resident licensed hunters
                                      X.1572  percent latent
                                      29,442  1980 latent hunters
                          Year 2000
                                      216,542 resident licensed hunters
                                      X.1572  percent latent
                                      34,040  2000 latent hunters
                          Year 2020
                                      247,662 resident licensed hunters
                                      x.1572  percent latent
                                      38,932  2020 latent hunters

                     Computation of Unlicensed Hunters (4 percent of resident licensed hunters)
                               Resident licensed hunters x .04 = number of unlicensed hunters
                                      1960         161,336 x .04 = 6,453
                                      1980         187,290 x .04 = 7,492
                                      2000         216,542 x .04 = 8,662
                                      2020         247,662 x .04 = 9,906

                     Computation of Nonresident Hunters (.73 percent of resident licensed hunters)
                                      1960         161,336 x .0073 = 1,178
                                      1980         187,290 x .0073 = 1,367
                                      2000         216,542 x .0073 = 1,581
                                      2020         247,662 x .0073 = 1,808

                     Computation of Net Change on Opportunity
                     [Acres lost per target year x use/acre] - [Acres gained x use/acre]    NetChange
                     Year 1980
                                            88,700 x .3555 - 4,883 x    4.13
                                                    31,533 - 20,166 = 11,367 Net
                                                                        Change (loss)
                     Year 2000
                                           101,600 x .3555 - 4,883 x    4.13
                                                    36,119 - 20,166 = 15,953 Net
                                                                        Change (loss)
                     Year 2020
                                           106,700 x .3555 - 4,883 x    4.13
                                                    37,932 - 20,166 = 17,766 Net
                                                                        Change (loss)

                   138 Appendix 17

                   TABLE 17-75       Sample License Table

                                          Un-        Non-                                         Partic-
                            Licensed    Licensed  Resident    Latent    Actual       Potential    ipation   Gross 4     Net    5
                   Year     Hunters     Hunters   Hunters     Hunters   Hunters      Hunters2       Rate3   Demand      Demand

                   1960     161,336     6,453      lJ82       ------    168,971      -------      10.92     1,844,071   ---------
                   1980     187,286     7,491      1,367      29,441    196,144      225,585      10.70     2,413,760    581,056
                   2000     216,534     8,661      1,581      34,039    226,776      260,815      10.50     2,738,558    921,807
                   2020     247,653     9,906      1,809      38,931    259,776      298,299      10.30     3,072,480   1,273,495
                   lActual  hunters = total resident licensed hunters   + unlicensed hunters  + nonresident hunters.
                   2Potential hunters = actual hunters + latent hunters.
                   3Participation rate is taken from The National Survey of Hunting and   .Fishing and from Appendix K,
                   Fish and Wildlife, Grand River Basin Michigan Comprehensive Water Resources Study.
                   4Gross demands are potential hunters.x participation rates.
                   5Net demand is adjusted from gross demand. It represent� needed days of hunting opportunity that must
                   be supplied per target year in addition to the expected increases in hunting opportunity and is
                   cumulative over the study period. The following are examples of the years 1980, 2000, and 2020 using
                   Planning Subarea 4.2 computations for arriving at the net demands for hunting opportunity.
                   Year 1980 (See sample calculation at end of page-)
                   1980 Gross Demand - 1960 Gross Demand + Net Change of Opportunity 1960-1980 = 1980 Net Demand
                        2,413,760    -       1,844,071    +       11,367                           = 581,056

                   Year 2000

                   2000 Gross Demand -  1980 Gross Demand +  1980 Net Demand + Net Change of Opportunity = 2000 Net Demand
                        2,738,558    -       2,413,760    +       581,056     +      15,953                 = 921,807

                   Year 2020

                   2020 Gross Demand -  2000 Gross Demand +  2000 Net Demand  +Net   Change of Opportunity  = 2020 Net Demand
                        3,072,480    -       2,738,558    +       921,807     +      17,766                 = 1,273,495

                   Sample Calculation for Year 1980:

                   The net change in opportunity is the result of the increases plus the decreases in opportunity as
                   follows:

                   Increases--total acreage gained per target year x use per acre (man-days) on intensively managed
                              hunting areas            [4,883 x 4.13 = 20,1661
                   Decreases--total acreage  lost per target year x use per acre (man-days) on unmanaged private land
                              (taken from the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey)              [88,700 x .3555 = 31,5331
                   Thus net change of opportunity 1960-1980 = 31,533 - 20,166 = 11,367

                   TABLE    17-76 Sample Supply Areas Table, Planning Subarea 4.2
                   Year and      Resource    Potentially Huntable Land      Year and      Resource  Potentially Huntable Land
                   Land Use       Base'       Percent         Acres         Land Use        Basel      Percent          Acres

                   1966-67                                                  2000
                   Cropland    4,735,100        15%           710,265       Cropland     4,599,800       15%            689,970
                   Pasture       213,800        90%           192,265       Pasture       207,700        90%            186,930
                   Forest        453,400       100%           453,400       Forest        440,500       100%            440,500
                   Other         349,300        40%           139,720       Other         339,300        40%            135,720
                                                             1,495,805                                                1,453,120

                   1980                                                     2020
                   Cropland     4,683,400       15%           702,610       Cropland     4,511,900       15%            676,785
                   Pasture       211,500        90%           190,350       Pasture       203,700        90%            183,330
                   Forest        448,500       100%           448,500       Forest        432,100       100%            432,100
                   Other         345,500        40%           138,200       Other         332,800        40%            133,120
                                                             1,479,660                                                1,425,335
                   lAppendix 13, Land Use and Afemagenzent, Great Lakes Basin Frmnework   Study, first draft

                                                                                                         Addendum 139

                           Determination of the Acreage Needs of the Wildlife User

                    Traditionally, in comprehensive surveys,             hunter factor is required even though hunter
                   wildlife needs have been based on projections         numbers are low. Each planning subarea de-
                   of hunter use expressed in hunter days by             serves individual attention to determine the
                   target years. This approach is useful in show-        most logical acreage demands figure.
                   ing trends and gives the planner the opportu-           The base data for determination of the sup-
                   nity to recognize requirements that must be           ply of huntable acres available from the re-
                   met if needs are to be fulfilled. Quantifying         source base were taken from Appendix 13,
                   these needs on an acreage basis is considered a       Land Use and Management. In that appendix,
                   difficult task. Nevertheless, an effort has been      all land is classified by target year, 1980, 2000,
                   made in this appendix to determine the acre-          and 2020, as either cropland, pasture, forest or
                   age of wildlife habitat needed by target years        other. Acres of land in each classification were
                   to satisfy hunting opportunity needs.                 then multi-plied by the percent considered
                     The rationale used to compute the acreage           huntable. These data were then totaled to ar-
                   needs of the wildlife user by planning subarea        rive at the acres of supply of huntable land for
                   is as follows. It is recognized that by fixing a      each target year. Supply represents the acres
                   figure for acreage needed per hunter and ap-          of wildlife habitat projected to be available for
                   plying it Basinwide, the result may indicate          hunting and nonconsumptive use.
                   either needs greater than the existing plan-            Determination of acres of habitat needed for
                   ning subarea wildlife habitat       'acreage or       each target year was based on the increase in
                   surplus acreages. Therefore, the Wildlife             the number of hunters from one target year to
                   Work Group fqels that an estimate of acres            the next. In Planning Subarea 4.2, for exam-
                   needed per hunter should be applied for each          ple, the increase in the number of hunters be-
                   planning subarea, based on its circumstances          tween 1970 and 1980, the first target year, was
                   and acres available in 1970. This judgment            31,200 (196,000 hunters in 1980 minus 165,000
                   should be based on the type of habitat and the        hunters in 1970). This increase was then mul-
                   type of hunting. For example, it is postulated        tiplied by ten acres, an estimate of the mini-
                   that farm-game habitat can support a greater          mum number of acres needed for each hunter
                   density of hunters than can forest-game               in this planning subarea. The number of acres
                   habitat. The net Basinwide effects are an ad-         of wildlife habitat required by target year is
                   justment of the needed acres between high             the sum of the acres of supply and the acres
                   and low demand areas. In northern planning            needed (net demand).
                   subareas where forest-game hunting is the               Following is an example of how these com-
                   dominant wildlife use, a higher acreage per           putations were made in Planning Subarea 4.2.

                  140 Appendix 17

                            Determination of Needed Acres in Planning Subarea 4.2

                                           196,200   Number of hunters in 1980
                                          -165,000   Number of hunters in 1970
                                             -@-1,200 Increase in hunters 1970-1980
                                              X 10   Acres needed per hunter
                                           312,000   Total acres additional needed by 1980

                                           226,800   Number of hunters in 2000
                                          -196,200   Number of hunters in 1980
                                             30,600  Increase in hunters 1980-2000
                                              X 10   Acres needed per hunter
                                           306,000   Total acres additional needed 1980-2000

                                           259,400   Number of hunters in 2020
                                          -226,800   Number of hunters in 2000
                                             32,600  Increase in hunters 2000-2020
                                              X 10   Acres needed per hunter
                                           326,000   Total acres additional needed 2000-2020

                                               Total acres needed by 1980 = 312,000
                                               Total acres needed by 2000 = 618,000
                                               Total acres needed by 2020 = 944,000

                                                                      Additional
                            Year          Acres of Supply           Acres Needed          Total Acres Needed
                            1970              1,495,805                                         1,495,805
                            1980              1,479,660                  312,000                1,791,660
                            2000              1,452,120                  618,000                2,070,120
                            2020              1,425,335                 944,000                 2,369,335

                                             4

          '7*

             p
                        A
                          Air

                                                      DATE DUE

                                                                            On

     Awk.

                                                                                          r

                             Yf Agriculture
                             6f the Army
                     eip,prtmentl
                    D    40 of Commerce
                    =rr f4m"
                           6nt of
                      :r-E=4 weva"k
                                ousing
                      Urban     pment
                    Department -4 the Interior
                     971@@ of Ja ice
                                 S
                                 SM
                      Rrl-@@t of   e
                  Department of Transportation
                 Environmental Ootection Agency
                   Federal    Commission
                    Gre
                      at Lakes
                                el@
                        `7 19
                                                                                          4

                          aai